Ponticelli v. State

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's successive postconviction motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Appellant was not entitled to postconviction relief.

In 1993, Appellant's two death sentences became final. In his postconviction motion Appellant raised claims predicated on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and the Supreme Court's decision on remand in Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that this Court's precedent and the United States Supreme Court's precedent foreclosed relief as to Appellant's claims.

Download PDF
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC19-607 ____________ ANTHONY JOHN PONTICELLI, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. April 16, 2020 PER CURIAM. Anthony John Ponticelli, a prisoner under two sentences of death, appeals the circuit court’s order denying his successive postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1). Ponticelli’s two sentences of death became final in 1993. Ponticelli v. State, 618 So. 2d 154 (Fla.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 935 (1993). In seeking relief from his death sentences below, Ponticelli raised claims predicated on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this Court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), from which we have since receded in State v. Poole, 45 Fla. L. Weekly S41 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020), clarified, 45 Fla. L. Weekly S121 (Fla. Apr. 2, 2020). The United States Supreme Court’s precedent and our precedent foreclose relief as to Ponticelli’s claims. See McKinney v. Arizona, 140 S. Ct. 702, 707-08 (2020) (holding that, under Hurst v. Florida, “a jury must find the aggravating circumstance that makes the defendant death eligible,” but that a jury “is not constitutionally required to weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances or to make the ultimate sentencing decision within the relevant sentencing range,” and that Hurst v. Florida “do[es] not apply retroactively on collateral review”); see also Poole, 41 Fla. L. Weekly at S48 (“reced[ing] from Hurst v. State except to the extent it requires a jury unanimously to find the existence of a statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt” as required by Hurst v. Florida); Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216, 217 (Fla. 2017) (holding that Hurst v. Florida as interpreted in Hurst v. State is not retroactive to defendants similarly situated to Ponticelli). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s denial. It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. -2- LABARGA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. Ponticelli’s death sentences became final before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). See Ponticelli v. State, 618 So. 2d 154 (Fla.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 935 (1993). Thus, consistent with this Court’s decision in Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), I concur in the result. I do, however, dissent to the majority’s reliance on State v. Poole, 45 Fla. L. Weekly S41 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020), with which I strenuously disagree and which I conclude was wrongly decided. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Marion County, Robert W. Hodges, Judge - Case No. 421987CF002719CFAXXX Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida, for Appellant Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Patrick Bobek, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Appellee -3-
Primary Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order denying Appellant's successive postconviction motion, holding that Appellant was not entitled to postconviction 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.