Case Title: Windom v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC17-902

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2018-01-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-902 
____________ 
 
CURTIS WINDOM,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Respondent. 
 
[January 23, 2018] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Curtis Windom’s appeal of the circuit court’s order 
denying Windom’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 
3.851.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
Windom’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 Windom’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, Windom responded to this Court’s order to 
show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 
After reviewing Windom’s response to the order to show cause, as well as 
the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Windom is not entitled to relief.  
Windom was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to 
death on each count following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death.  
Windom v. State, 656 So. 2d 432, 435 (Fla. 1995).  Windom’s sentences of death 
became final in 1995.  Windom v. Florida, 516 U.S. 1012 (1995).  Thus, Hurst 
does not apply retroactively to Windom’s sentences of death.  See Hitchcock, 226 
So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Windom’s motion. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Windom, we 
caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken.  It is so 
ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. 
LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. 
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. 
I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock 
v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now 
final.  However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting 
opinion in Hitchcock. 
 
 
- 3 - 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Orange County,  
Renee A. Roche, Judge - Case No. 481992CF001305000AOX 
 
James Vigianno, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Ali Andrew Shakoor, and 
Ann Marie Mirialakis, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle 
Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, 
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Scott A. Browne, Assistant Attorney 
General, Tampa, Florida, 
 
for Appellee