Title: Pietri v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-1281 
____________ 
 
NORBERTO PIETRI,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
[February 2, 2018] 
 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Norberto Pietri’s appeal of the circuit court’s order 
denying Pietri’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 
3.851.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
Pietri’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 Pietri’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, Pietri responded to this Court’s order to show cause 
arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 
After reviewing Pietri’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Pietri is not entitled to relief.  Pietri 
was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 
eight to four.  Pietri v. State, 644 So. 2d 1347, 1349 (Fla. 1994).  Pietri’s sentence 
of death became final in 1995.  Pietri v. Florida, 515 U.S. 1147 (1995).  Thus, 
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Pietri’s sentence of death.  See Hitchcock, 
226 So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Pietri’s motion. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Pietri, 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 Palm Beach County,  
John S. Kastrenakes, Judge - Case No. 501988CF011366AXXXMB 
 
 
- 3 - 
 
Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, William M. Hennis, III, 
Litigation Director, and Marta Jaszczolt, Staff Attorney, Capital Collateral 
Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Leslie T. Campbell, 
Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, 
 
for Appellee