Florida Death-Penalty Appeals Decided in Light of Hurst

To view exe­cu­tions of pris­on­ers who have been denied relief under Hurst, click here.

The Florida Supreme Court has declared that it will apply its deci­sions in Hurst v. State and Asay v. State—which held that non-unan­i­mous jury rec­om­men­da­tions of death vio­late the Florida state con­sti­tu­tion and the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — to new death penal­ty cas­es and to old­er cas­es in which the direct appeal process was final on or after the U.S. Supreme Court decid­ed Ring v. Arizona in June 2002.

Total num­ber of pris­on­ers whose cas­es have been reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court (or who have been grant­ed relief by a Circuit Court) in light of Hurst: 313

Number of pris­on­ers who have obtained relief under Hurst: 147 (47%)

Number of pris­on­ers who have been denied relief under Hurst: 169 (54%)°
 

°Because some defen­dants obtained Hurst relief on one sen­tence while being denied relief on anoth­er, the total of the two cat­e­gories exceeds 100%.

* The Florida Supreme Court grant­ed relief under Hurst on Bevel’s non-unan­i­mous death sen­tence, but grant­ed relief based on inef­fec­tive assis­tance of coun­sel on Bevel’s unan­i­mous death sentence.

** The Florida Supreme Court held that the cir­cuit court prop­er­ly allowed Davis to waive review of the Hurst issue.

*** Poole was ini­tial­ly grant­ed Hurst relief by a cir­cuit court, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed based on a revised under­stand­ing of the jury sen­tenc­ing require­ment.

**** Silvia was ini­tial­ly grant­ed Hurst relief by a cir­cuit court, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed based on Silvia’s 2012 waiv­er of fur­ther post-conviction proceedings.

***** The Florida Supreme Court not­ed that Wood’s sen­tence would not have been harm­less under Hurst because it struck two of the three aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances found by the tri­al court; how­ev­er, the court vacat­ed the death sen­tence and imposed a life sen­tence under its statu­to­ry review for proportionality.

For more back­ground on the Florida leg­isla­tive and court actions relat­ed to the jury una­nim­i­ty issue, see Hurst v. Florida Background.

To check on the sta­tus of cas­es involv­ing Florida death-row pris­on­ers with non-unan­i­mous jury rec­om­men­da­tions for death whose sen­tences became final after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2002 deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona, see this chart.

DPIC has been work­ing with Hannah Gorman of the Florida Center for Capital Representation at Florida International University College of Law to mon­i­tor the out­comes of chal­lenges to Florida death sen­tences that were imposed under sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dures that vio­late Hurst v. Florida. Ms. Gorman cre­at­ed the pie graph below based on her analy­sis of Florida death sen­tences that have been or will be over­turned based on Hurst, as well as sen­tences that have been or will be affirmed because they either (A) became final before Ring (i.e., based on the date of their appeal) or (B) were pre­sumed harm­less based on a unan­i­mous jury ver­dict or the defen­dan­t’s waiv­er of a jury sen­tence. The graph includes deci­sions of the Florida cir­cuit courts, as well as state and fed­er­al appeal deci­sions. The graph has been updat­ed peri­od­i­cal­ly — most recent­ly on June 27, 2019 — to reflect ongo­ing lit­i­ga­tion devel­op­ments in the Hurst cas­es. According to this infor­ma­tion, a total of 382 Florida pris­on­ers were sen­tenced to death under the uncon­sti­tu­tion­al sen­tenc­ing scheme, but only 41% (157) of Florida death-row pris­on­ers who were sen­tenced under that scheme will be granted relief.