Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
THOMAS LEE GUDINAS vs. STATE OF FLORIDA
Case Number: SC17-919
Judge: PER CURIAM
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Plaintiff's Attorney: Pamela Jo Bondi
Assistant Attorney General
Defendant's Attorney: James Vincent Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Ali A. Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel
Description: We have for review Thomas Lee Gudinasís appeal of the circuit courtís
order denying Gudinasís motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, ß 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Gudinasís motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme
Courtís 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). This Court stayed Gudinasís appeal pending the disposition of
Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017).
- 2 -
After this Court decided Hitchcock, Gudinas responded to this Courtís order to
show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Gudinasís response to the order to show cause, as well as
the Stateís arguments in reply, we conclude that Gudinas is not entitled to relief.
Gudinas was sentenced to death following a juryís recommendation for death by a
vote of ten to two. Gudinas v. State, 693 So. 2d 953, 959 (Fla. 1997). His
sentence of death became final in 1997. Gudinas v. Florida, 522 U.S. 936 (1997).
Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gudinasís sentence of death. See
Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gudinasís
Outcome: The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Gudinas, we
caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.