Valentine v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying Appellant's successive motion for postconviction relief filed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that the trial court properly denied relief.

In his postconviction motion, Appellant raised a claim relating to the legal name of one of his victims, to whom he had been married, and sought relief pursuant to Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and Hurst v. State, 202 S. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's claim regarding the legal name of one of his victims was untimely and procedurally barred; and (2) Hurst relief did not apply to Appellant because he waived his right to a penalty phase jury.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC18-1102 ____________ TERANCE VALENTINE, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. June 4, 2020 PER CURIAM. This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying a successive motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.1 We affirm the denial of relief. First, Valentine’s claim relating to the legal name of one of his victims, to whom he had been married, is untimely and procedurally barred. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(1) (“Any motion to vacate judgment of conviction and sentence of death shall be filed by the defendant within 1 year after the judgment and sentence 1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. become final.”); Hendrix v. State, 136 So. 3d 1122, 1125 (Fla. 2014) (“Claims raised and rejected in prior postconviction proceedings are procedurally barred from being litigated in a successive motion.”). This information was known to Valentine and raised during his initial postconviction proceedings. See Valentine v. State, 98 So. 3d 44, 50 n.8, 51 (Fla. 2012). Second, the trial court properly denied Valentine Hurst2 relief because he waived his right to a penalty phase jury. See Twilegar v. State, 228 So. 3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2017) (“[T]he Hurst decisions do not apply to defendants like Twilegar who waived a penalty phase jury.”). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Valentine’s successive motion for postconviction relief. It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. COURIEL, J., did not participate. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Michelle Sisco, Judge - Case No. 291988CF012996000AHC Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer and Maria DeLiberato of Parmer DeLiberato. P.A., Tampa, Florida, 2. Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016); Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). -2- for Appellant Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Rick A. Buchwalter, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee -3-

Primary Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order denying a successive motion for postconviction relief, holding that the trial court properly denied relief.

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.