Case Title: Zakrzewski v. Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC18-646

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2018-09-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC18-646 
____________ 
 
EDWARD J. ZAKRZEWSKI, II, 
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Appellee. 
 
September 20, 2018 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Edward J. Zakrzewski’s appeal of the circuit court’s 
order denying Zakrzewski’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 
Procedure 3.851.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
Zakrzewski’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).  Zakrzewski responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing 
why Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), 
should not be dispositive in this case. 
 
 
- 2 - 
After reviewing Zakrzewski’s response to the order to show cause, as well as 
the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that our prior denial of Zakrzewski’s 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus raising similar claims is a procedural bar to the 
claims at issue in this appeal.  All of Zakrzewski’s claims depend upon the 
retroactive application of Hurst, to which we have held he is not entitled.  See 
Zakrzewski v. Jones, 221 So. 3d 1159, 1159 (Fla. 2017); Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 
217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Zakrzewski’s motion. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Zakrzewski, 
we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken.  It is 
so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, 
JJ., concur. 
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. 
 
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. 
 
I agree with the per curiam opinion that we have formerly denied 
Zakrzewski relief pursuant to Hitchcock,1 which, of course, is now final.  However, 
I write separately to emphasize the jury override in Zakrzewski’s case. 
Following the penalty phase, the jury in Zakrzewski’s case recommended 
two sentences of death—both by a vote of seven to five—and one sentence of life 
                                          
 
 
1.  Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 
(2017). 
 
 
 
- 3 - 
by a vote of six to six.  Nevertheless, the trial court sentenced Zakrzewski to three 
sentences of death, thereby overriding the jury’s recommendation for life on the 
final sentence.  See Asay v. State (Asay V), 210 So. 3d 1, 29 n.19 (Fla. 2016), cert. 
denied, 138 S. Ct. 41 (2017) (Labarga, C.J., concurring); id. at 35 n.32 (Pariente, 
J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).   
As I expressed in Asay V, “the jurisprudence on the acceptability of judicial 
overrides has so dramatically changed” since sentences like Zakrzewski’s were 
finalized.  Id. at 35 n.32 (Pariente, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).  
Hurst2 made clear that jury overrides are unconstitutional, and, likewise, jury 
overrides are not permitted under Florida’s current capital sentencing scheme.  See 
§ 921.141, Fla. Stat. (2018).  
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Okaloosa County,  
John T. Brown, Judge - Case No. 461994CF001283XXXAXX 
 
Martin J. McClain of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Wilton Manors, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Senior Assistant 
Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee 
 
                                          
 
 
2.  Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 
2161 (2017); see Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016).