Case Title: Trepal v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC17-892

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2018-01-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-892 
____________ 
 
GEORGE JAMES TREPAL,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
[January 26, 2018] 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review George James Trepal’s appeal of the circuit court’s 
order denying Trepal’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 
Procedure 3.851.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
Trepal’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 Trepal’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, Trepal responded to this Court’s order to show cause 
arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 
After reviewing Trepal’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Trepal is not entitled to relief.  Trepal 
was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 
nine to three.  Trepal v. State, 621 So. 2d 1361, 1363 (Fla. 1993).  Trepal’s 
sentence of death became final in 1994.  Trepal v. Florida, 510 U.S. 1077 (1994).  
Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Trepal’s sentence of death.  See 
Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Trepal’s 
motion. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Trepal, we 
caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken.  It is so 
ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. 
LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. 
QUINCE, J., recused. 
 
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 Polk County,  
Jalal A. Harb, Judge - Case No. 531990CF001569A1XXXX 
 
Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Todd G. Scher, and Brittney 
Nicole Lacy, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort 
Lauderdale, Florida, 
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christina Z. Pacheco, Assistant Attorney 
General, Tampa, Florida, 
 
for Appellee