THOMAS LEE GUDINAS vs. STATE OF FLORIDA

We have for review Thomas Lee Gudinas’s appeal of the circuit court’s

order denying Gudinas’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Gudinas’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). This Court stayed Gudinas’s 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 Court’s order to

show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Gudinas’s response to the order to show cause, as well as

the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Gudinas is not entitled to relief.

Gudinas was sentenced to death following a jury’s 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 Gudinas’s sentence of death. See

Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gudinas’s

motion.

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.