Case Title: Jesse Guardado v. State of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC17-1903

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2018-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-1903 
____________ 
 
JESSE GUARDADO, 
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Appellee. 
 
[March 8, 2018] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying a motion to 
vacate a sentence of death under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.  We 
have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS 
The underlying facts of this case were described in this Court’s opinion on 
direct appeal.  Guardado v. State, 965 So. 2d 108, 110-12 (Fla. 2007).  This Court 
affirmed Guardado’s convictions and sentence of death.  Id. at 120.  This Court 
also affirmed the denial of Guardado’s initial postconviction motion.  Guardado v. 
State, 176 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 2015). 
 
 
- 2 - 
 
In 2017, Guardado filed a motion for postconviction relief arguing that he 
was entitled to relief pursuant to Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016).  That 
motion was continued to give Guardado an opportunity to proceed in this Court 
with a habeas petition.  Guardado filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
arguing that he was entitled to relief pursuant to both Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. 
State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017).  This Court 
held: 
We agree with Guardado that Hurst is applicable in his case.  See 
Mosley v. State, 209 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 2016).  However, because we 
find that the Hurst error in this case is harmless beyond a reasonable 
doubt, we deny Guardado’s petition.  As we stated in Davis v. State, 
207 So. 3d 142, 175 (Fla. 2016): 
[T]he jury unanimously found all of the necessary facts 
for the imposition of death sentences by virtue of its 
unanimous recommendations. . . .  The unanimous 
recommendations here are precisely what we determined 
in Hurst to be constitutionally necessary to impose a 
sentence of death. 
Accordingly, the Hurst violation in this case is harmless beyond a 
reasonable doubt and, as in Davis, does not entitle Guardado to relief. 
Guardado v. Jones, 226 So. 3d 213, 215 (Fla. 2017). 
 
Subsequently, the circuit court returned to its consideration of Guardado’s 
successive motion for postconviction relief and summarily denied Guardado’s 
motion, stating: 
The current state of the law indicates Hurst would apply to the 
defendant’s case.  See Mosley v. State, 209 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 2016).  
However, the law is also clear the defendant is not entitled to a new 
 
 
- 3 - 
penalty phase based on a harmless error analysis.  See Davis v. State, 
207 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 2016).  Indeed, this court is bound by the 
decision of the Supreme Court of Florida determining any Hurst error 
in the instant case is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  Guardado 
v. [Jones], No. SC17-389, 2017 WL 1954984 (Fla. May 11, 2017) 
(denying the defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus); 
Guardado v. [Jones], No.SC17-389, 2017 WL 4150352 (Fla. Sept. 19, 
2017) (denying the defendant’s motion for rehearing). Therefore, the 
defendant is not entitled to relief under Hurst.  As a result, the instant 
motion is denied. 
Guardado v. State, No. 2004-CF-000903, order at 2-3 (Fla. 1st. Cir. Sept. 27, 
2017). 
 
Guardado filed the instant appeal.  On October 31, 2017, this Court issued 
an order to show cause why the lower court’s order should not be affirmed. 
DISCUSSION 
Guardado’s argument here is nearly identical to that contained in his petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this Court on March 8, 2017, which this Court 
denied in Guardado v. Jones, 226 So. 3d at 215.  The proceedings below 
originated on July 5, 2016, but were continued to permit Guardado to seek Hurst 
relief from this Court via his habeas proceedings.  After this Court denied 
Guardado’s habeas petition, the postconviction proceedings resumed and the 
circuit court denied Guardado’s motion.  Order at 1.  
 
The circuit court correctly concluded that this Court has addressed 
Guardado’s claims.  Guardado’s arguments in the present appeal are 
indistinguishable from those contained in his habeas petition.   
 
 
- 4 - 
Further, we have considered and rejected Guardado’s claim that Caldwell v. 
Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985), and Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993), 
affect this Court’s harmless error analysis in Hurst.  See, e.g., Franklin v. State, 43 
Fla. L. Weekly S86 (Fla. Feb. 15, 2018); Truehill v. State, 211 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 
2017); Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 
(2017).   
 
Because Guardado’s claims have been previously rejected, we affirm the 
circuit court’s summary denial of Guardado’s successive motion for postconviction 
relief. 
 
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, 
and LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Walton County,  
Kelvin C. Wells, Judge - Case No. 662004CF000903CFAXMX 
 
Billy H. Nolas, Chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Office of the Federal Public Defender, 
Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida; and Clyde M. Taylor, Jr. of 
Taylor & Taylor, LLC, St. Augustine, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa A. Hopkins, Assistant Attorney 
General, Tallahassee, Florida,  
 
 
for Appellee