Case Title: Card v. Jones

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2017-05-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-453 
____________ 
 
JAMES ARMANDO CARD, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
JULIE L. JONES, etc.,  
Respondent. 
 
[May 4, 2017] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
James Armando Card petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus seeking 
relief under Hurst v. Florida (Hurst v. Florida), 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and Hurst v. 
State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) petition for cert. filed, No. 16-998 (U.S. 
Feb. 13, 2017).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.   
 
Card’s sentence of death, which his penalty phase jury recommended by a 
vote of eleven to one, became final when the United States Supreme Court denied 
Card’s petition for writ of certiorari on June 28, 2002.  See Card v. State, 803 So. 
2d 613 (Fla. 2001) cert. denied Card v. Florida, 536 U.S. 963 (2002); see also Fla. 
R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(1)(B).  We have held that Hurst applies retroactively to 
 
 
- 2 - 
“defendants whose sentences became final after the United States Supreme Court 
issued its opinion in Ring [v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)].”  Mosley v. State, 
209 So. 3d 1248, 1276 (Fla. 2016).  Thus, Hurst applies retroactively to Card, 
whose sentence became final four days after the United States Supreme Court 
issued its opinion in Ring. 
Accordingly, we must determine whether the Hurst error in Card’s penalty 
phase proceeding was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  “[I]n the context of a 
Hurst v. Florida error, the burden is on the State, as the beneficiary of the error, to 
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury’s failure to unanimously find all the 
facts necessary for imposition of the death penalty did not contribute to [the] death 
sentence.”  Hurst, 202 So. 3d at 68.  As applied to the right to a jury trial with 
regard to the factual findings necessary to impose a sentence of death, it must be 
clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have unanimously found 
that each aggravating factor was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the 
aggravating factors were sufficient to impose death, and that the aggravating 
factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances.  See id. at 44. 
 
We conclude that the State cannot establish that the Hurst error in Card’s 
case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  In Card’s case, the jury did not 
unanimously make the requisite factual findings and did not unanimously 
recommend a sentence of death.  Instead, the jury recommended the sentence of 
 
 
- 3 - 
death by a vote of eleven to one.  Card, 803 So. 2d at 619.  This Court has no way 
of knowing if the jury unanimously found each aggravating factor, whether the 
aggravating factors were sufficient to impose a death sentence, or whether the 
aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances.  Further, this Court 
cannot speculate why the one juror who voted to recommend a sentence of life 
imprisonment determined that a sentence of death was not the appropriate 
punishment.  Thus, we conclude that the Hurst error in Card’s case was not 
harmless.  The petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby granted.  Accordingly, 
we vacate the death sentence and remand this matter to the circuit court for a new 
penalty phase. 
 
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. 
CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., dissent. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus 
 
Leor Veleanu, Federal Community Defender, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and 
Billy H. Nolas, Chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Office of the Federal Public Defender, 
Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
No appearance for Respondent