Arbelaez v. State
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Florida Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Florida Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Supreme Court denied Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to establish that he was entitled to the writ.
Appellant was convicted in 1991, following a jury trial, of first-degree murder and kidnapping. Decades later, Appellant filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, Appellant claimed that Chapter 2017-1, Laws of Florida, created a substantive right that must be retroactively applied under the state and federal Constitutions. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that this Court had consistently rejected as without merit the claim that chapter 2017-1 created a substantive right that must be retroactively applied, and Appellant's arguments did not compel departing from precedent.
Download PDF
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC2015-1628 ____________ GUILLERMO OCTAVIO ARBELAEZ, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ____________ No. SC2018-0392 ____________ GUILLERMO OCTAVIO ARBELAEZ, Petitioner, vs. RICKY D. DIXON, etc., Respondent. May 25, 2023 PER CURIAM. Guillermo Octavio Arbelaez, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit court’s order summarily denying his successive motion for postconviction relief, which was filed under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and 3.203. Arbelaez also petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. In 1991, a jury convicted Arbelaez of first-degree murder and kidnapping. We affirmed Arbelaez’s convictions and sentence of death on direct appeal. Arbelaez v. State (Arbelaez I), 626 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1993). We upheld the denial of his initial motion for postconviction relief on all but one claim, which we remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Arbelaez v. State (Arbelaez II), 775 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2000). We upheld the denial of his second postconviction motion after the evidentiary hearing and denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Arbelaez v. State (Arbelaez III), 898 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2005). In 2004, Arbelaez filed his third postconviction motion, in which he raised an intellectual disability claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203 and Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). We reversed the denial of his intellectual disability claim and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Arbelaez v. State (Arbelaez IV), No. SC2005-1610 (Fla. order Nov. 14, 2006). We upheld the denial of his fourth postconviction motion after an -2- evidentiary hearing. Arbelaez v. State (Arbelaez V), 72 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 2011). We also upheld the denial of his fifth postconviction motion. Arbelaez v. State (Arbelaez VI), 88 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 2012). In May 2015, Arbelaez filed his sixth postconviction motion under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and 3.203. Within his motion, Arbelaez sought relief based on Hall v. Florida (Hall), 572 U.S. 701 (2014), and Atkins. In June 2015, the circuit court issued an order summarily denying Arbelaez’s intellectual disability claim in light of this Court’s decision in Arbelaez V. This appeal followed. While Arbelaez’s postconviction case was pending in this Court, this Court permitted Arbelaez to file supplemental briefing in light of Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S 92 (2016), and Hall v. State (Hall v. State), 201 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 2016). Arbelaez subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that chapter 2017-1, Laws of Florida, created a substantive right that must be retroactively applied under the United States and Florida Constitutions. First, Arbelaez is not entitled to postconviction relief based on his intellectual disability claim. As this Court stated in Phillips v. State, 299 So. 3d 1013, 1024 (Fla. 2020), Hall does not apply -3- retroactively. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s order summarily denying Arbelaez’s successive motion for postconviction relief. Second, Arbelaez is not entitled to Hurst relief because the jury unanimously found that Arbelaez was guilty of kidnapping Julio Rivas. See State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 489, 508 (Fla. 2020) (“The jury in Poole’s case unanimously found that, during the course of the first-degree murder of Noah Scott, Poole committed the crimes of attempted first-degree murder of White, sexual battery of White, armed burglary, and armed robbery. Under this Court’s longstanding precedent interpreting Ring v. Arizona [536 U.S. 584 (2002)] and under a correct understanding of Hurst v. Florida, this satisfied the requirement that a jury unanimously find a statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.”); Arbelaez I, 626 So. 2d at 174 (“[T]he jury found Arbelaez guilty of kidnapping and the first-degree murder of Julio Rivas.”). This Court has consistently rejected as without merit the claim that chapter 2017-1, Laws of Florida, created a substantive right that must be retroactively applied. See, e.g., Thomas v. Jones, SC2017-2268, 2018 WL 3198373, at *1 (Fla. June 29, 2018) -4- (unpublished order); Rodriguez v. Jones, SC2018-0352, 2018 WL 1673423, at *1 (Fla. Apr. 6, 2018) (unpublished order); Hannon v. State, 228 So. 3d 505, 513 (Fla. 2017); Lambrix v. State, 227 So. 3d 112, 113 (Fla. 2017); Asay v. State, 224 So. 3d 695, 703 (Fla. 2017). Arbelaez’s arguments do not compel departing from our precedent. Consequently, we deny Arbelaez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered. MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion. SASSO, J., did not participate. LABARGA, J., dissenting. In light of my dissent in Phillips v. State, 299 So. 3d 1013 (Fla. 2020) (receding from Walls v. State, 213 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 2016), and holding that Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), does not apply retroactively), I dissent to the majority’s decision to the extent that it affirms the summary denial of Arbelaez’s successive motion for postconviction relief. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Diane Valentina Ward, Judge -5- Case No. 131988CF0055460001XX And an Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus Suzanne Keffer, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Todd Scher, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant/Petitioner Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Leslie T. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Appellee/Respondent -6-
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.
