Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-17-2019
Case Style:
William Lee Thompson v. State of Florida
Case Number: SC18-1435
Judge: PER CURIAM
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Plaintiff's Attorney: Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Melissa Roca Shaw, Assistant Attorney General
Defendant's Attorney: Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer, Special Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Brittney Nicole Lacy, Staff Attorney
Description:
We have for review William Lee Thompson’s appeal of the postconviction
court’s order denying Thompson’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.
Const.
Thompson’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme
Court’s 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). Thompson responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing
- 2 -
why Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017),
should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Thompson’s response to the order to show cause, as well as
the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Thompson is not entitled to relief.
Thompson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death following
a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of seven to five. Thompson v. State,
619 So. 2d 261, 264 (Fla. 1993). Thompson’s sentence of death became final in
1993. Thompson v. Florida, 510 U.S. 966 (1993). Thus, Hurst does not apply
retroactively to Thompson’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217;
see also Foster v. State, No. SC18-860, 2018 WL 6379348, at *2-4 (Fla. Dec. 6,
2018) (explaining why the “elements of ‘capital first-degree murder’ ” argument
derived from Hurst and the legislation implementing Hurst “has no merit”).
Outcome: Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court’s order denying relief.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: