Title: Damren v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-1080 
____________ 
 
FLOYD WILLIAM DAMREN,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
[February 2, 2018] 
 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Floyd William Damren’s appeal of the circuit court’s 
order denying Damren’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 
Procedure 3.851.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
Damren’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 Damren’s appeal pending the disposition of 
Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017).  
 
 
- 2 - 
After this Court decided Hitchcock, Damren responded to this Court’s order to 
show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 
After reviewing Damren’s response to the order to show cause, as well as 
the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Damren is not entitled to relief.  
Damren was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for 
death.  Damren v. State, 696 So. 2d 709, 710 (Fla. 1997).  Damren’s sentence of 
death became final in 1998.  Damren v. Florida, 522 U.S. 1054 (1998).  Thus, 
Hurst does not apply retroactively to Damren’s sentence of death.  See Hitchcock, 
226 So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Damren’s motion. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Damren, 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 Clay County,  
Michael Scott Sharrit, Judge - Case No. 101994CF000537XXAXMX 
 
 
- 3 - 
 
Robert S. Friedman, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Karin L. Moore and 
Stacy R. Biggart, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Northern Region, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Senior Assistant 
Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee