Case Title: Ford v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC17-859, SC16-706

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2018-01-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-859 
____________ 
 
JAMES D. FORD,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC16-706 
____________ 
 
JAMES D. FORD,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
JULIE L. JONES, etc.,  
Respondent. 
 
[January 23, 2018] 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
 
- 2 - 
James D. Ford appeals the circuit court’s order denying his motion filed 
pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitions this Court for a 
writ of habeas corpus.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.   
Ford seeks 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 Ford’s appeal and consideration of his habeas petition pending the 
disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. 
Ct. 513 (2017).  After this Court decided Hitchcock, Ford responded to this Court’s 
order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in both 
cases. 
After reviewing Ford’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Ford is not entitled to relief.  Ford’s 
jury found him guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and recommended a 
sentence of death for both murders by a vote of eleven to one.  Ford v. State, 802 
So. 2d 1121, 1126 (Fla. 2001).  Following the jury’s recommendations, the trial 
court sentenced Ford to death on both counts.  Id.  Ford’s sentences of death 
became final on May 28, 2002.  Ford v. Florida, 535 U.S. 1103 (2002).  Thus, 
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Ford’s sentences of death.  See Hitchcock, 
 
 
- 3 - 
226 So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Ford’s motion and deny 
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Ford, 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, 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 Charlotte County,  
Donald Herbert Mason, Judge - Case No. 081997CF0003510001XX 
And an Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus  
 
Martin J. McClain of McClain & McDermott, Florida,  
for Appellant/Petitioner 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christina Z. Pacheco, Assistant Attorney 
General, Tampa, Florida, 
 
for Appellee/Respondent