Case Title: Taylor v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC17-818

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2018-01-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-818 
____________ 
 
STEVEN RICHARD TAYLOR,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
[January 24, 2018] 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Steven Richard Taylor’s appeal of the circuit court’s 
order denying Taylor’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 
Procedure 3.851.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
Taylor’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 Taylor’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. 
State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017).  After this 
 
 
- 2 - 
Court decided Hitchcock, Taylor responded to this Court’s order to show cause 
arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 
After reviewing Taylor’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Taylor is not entitled to relief.  Taylor 
was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 
ten to two.  Taylor v. State, 630 So. 2d 1038, 1041 (Fla. 1993).  Taylor’s sentence 
of death became final in 1994.  Taylor v. Florida, 513 U.S. 832 (1994).  Thus, 
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Taylor’s sentence of death.  See Hitchcock, 
226 So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Taylor’s motion. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Taylor, 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, 2017 WL 4355572 (U.S. Dec. 4, 
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 Duval County,  
Russell L. Healey, Judge - Case No. 161991CF002456AXXXMA 
 
 
- 3 - 
 
Michael Paul Reiter, Ocala, Florida, 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer Ann Donahue, Assistant 
Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Appellee