Case Title: Bates v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC17-850

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2018-01-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-850 
____________ 
 
KAYLE BARRINGTON BATES,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-1224 
____________ 
 
KAYLE BARRINGTON BATES,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
JULIE L. JONES, etc.,  
Respondent. 
 
[January 22, 2018] 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
Kayle Barrington Bates appeals the circuit court’s order denying his motion 
filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitions this Court 
 
- 2 - 
for a writ of habeas corpus.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. 
Const.   
Bates seeks 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 Bates’ appeal and consideration of his habeas petition pending the 
disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. 
Ct. 513 (2017).  After this Court decided Hitchcock, Bates responded to this 
Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in 
both cases. 
After reviewing Bates’ response to the order to show cause, as well as the 
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Bates is not entitled to relief.  Bates 
was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 
nine to three.  Bates v. State, 750 So. 2d 6, 9 (Fla. 1999).  Bates’ sentence of death 
became final in 2000.  Bates v. Florida, 531 U.S. 835 (2000).  Thus, Hurst does not 
apply retroactively to Bates’ sentence of death.  See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217.  
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Bates’ motion and deny his petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus. 
 
- 3 - 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Bates, 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. 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Bay County,  
Harry Hentz McClellan, Judge - Case No. 031982CF000661XXAXMX 
And an Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus  
 
Sarah S. Butters of Ausley McMullen, Tallahassee, Florida, and Neal Dupree, 
Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Scott Gavin, and Rachel Day, Assistant 
Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 
 
for Appellant/Petitioner 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Assistant 
Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Appellee/Respondent