Lightbourne v. State

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Appellant’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that the Court’s prior denial of Appellant’s successive motion for postconviction relief raising similar claims was a procedural bar to the claims at issue in this appeal.

All of the claims raised in Appellant’s Rule 3.851 motion depended upon the retroactive application of Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). The Supreme Court previously held that Appellant was not entitled to such relief. Therefore, as to Appellant’s Rule 3.851 motion, in which he sought relief pursuant to Hurst and Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), the Supreme Court held that the circuit court properly denied the motion.

Download PDF
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC18-677 ____________ IAN DECO LIGHTBOURNE, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. August 30, 2018 PER CURIAM. We have for review Ian Deco Lightbourne’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Lightbourne’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Lightbourne’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). Lightbourne responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why this Court’s decisions in Lightbourne v. State, 235 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 2018), petition for cert. filed, No. 18-5012 (U.S. June 28, 2018), and Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Lightbourne’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that our prior denial of Lightbourne’s appeal from the circuit court’s denial of his successive motion for postconviction relief raising similar claims is a procedural bar to the claims at issue in this appeal. All of Lightbourne’s claims depend upon the retroactive application of Hurst, to which we have held he is not entitled. See Lightbourne, 235 So. 3d at 286; Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lightbourne’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lightbourne, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. -2- PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I agree with the per curiam opinion that we have formerly denied Lightbourne’s claims to Hurst1 relief pursuant to Hitchcock,2 which, of course, is now final. Nevertheless, as I have expressed several times, I would apply Hurst retroactively to Lightbourne’s case. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 221-23 (Pariente, J., dissenting). Applying Hurst to Lightbourne’s case, in which the jury’s vote is unclear, I would grant a new penalty phase because the State cannot prove that the Hurst error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Marion County, Steven Glen Rogers, Judge - Case No. 421981CF000170CFAXXX Neal Andre Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Suzanne Keffer, Chief Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Nicole M. Noël, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Patrick A. Bobek, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Appellee 1. Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017); see Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016). 2. Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). -3-
Primary Holding

***


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.