Case Title: Trease v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 581995

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2018-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-686 
____________ 
 
ROBERT J. TREASE,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
[January 24, 2018] 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Robert J. Trease’s appeal of the circuit court’s order 
denying Trease’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 
3.851.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
Trease’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 Trease’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, Trease responded to this Court’s order to show cause 
arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 
After reviewing Trease’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Trease is not entitled to relief.  Trease 
was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 
eleven to one, and his sentence of death became final in 2001.  Trease v. State, 768 
So. 2d 1050, 1053 (Fla. 2000).  Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to 
Trease’s sentence of death.  See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we 
affirm the denial of Trease’s motion. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Trease, 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, J., concur in result. 
CANADY, 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. 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County,  
 
 
- 3 - 
Rochelle Taylor Curley, Judge - Case No. 581995CF002207XXXANC 
 
Mark Olive, Law Offices of Mark Olive, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Stephen D. Ake, Assistant Attorney 
General, Tampa, Florida, 
 
for Appellee