Title: Durousseau v. Florida

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
______________ 
 
No. SC15-1276 
______________ 
 
PAUL DUROUSSEAU, 
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Appellee. 
 
 
[January 31, 2017] 
 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Paul Durousseau appeals an order of the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court 
denying his motion to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of 
death, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.  We have 
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.  For the reasons discussed below, we 
affirm the circuit court’s denial of postconviction relief but vacate Durousseau’s 
sentences and remand for resentencing in light of Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 
(2016), as interpreted by Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). 
 
 
- 2 - 
STATEMENT OF FACTS 
 
We discussed the facts of this case in our opinion on direct appeal.  See 
Durousseau v. State, 55 So. 3d 543, 548-50 (Fla. 2010).  Paul Durousseau was 
sentenced to death for the murder of Tyresa Mack.  In 1999, Mack’s sister and 
stepfather found Mack’s body in her apartment.  She was naked from the waist 
down, and a white cord was wrapped around her neck.  Durousseau’s DNA was 
found inside Mack’s vagina.  In 2003, Durousseau was indicted on five counts of 
first-degree murder for the deaths of five women.  The similar methodology of the 
crimes caused investigators to conclude that Mack was one of Durousseau’s 
victims.  Durousseau was arrested for Mack’s murder. 
 
In 2007, Durousseau was found guilty of the first-degree murder of Mack.  
After the penalty phase, the jury voted ten to two to impose a death sentence.  The 
trial court found four aggravating factors: (1) Durousseau was previously 
convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence; (2) the murder was 
committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of a robbery or 
sexual battery; (3) the murder was committed for pecuniary gain; and (4) the 
murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.  The trial court did not find any 
statutory mitigating circumstances, but it did find sixteen nonstatutory mitigating 
 
 
- 3 - 
circumstances.1  Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Durousseau to death.  Id. at 
550.  On December 9, 2010, this Court rejected all of Durousseau’s claims2 on 
direct appeal.  Id. at 564, cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 149 (2011). 
                                          
 
 
1.  The trial court found the following sixteen nonstatutory mitigators: (1) 
Durousseau was raised in a broken home (little weight); (2) Durousseau was raised 
without the benefit of his natural father and lost the love and support of his 
stepfather at an early age (little weight); (3) Durousseau grew up in poverty and 
came from a deprived background (little weight); (4) Durousseau was raised in a 
violent neighborhood and was exposed to violence and the threat of violence to his 
person on a daily basis (little weight); (5) Durousseau personally witnessed his 
stepfather physically abuse his mother (moderate weight); (6) Durousseau was 
beaten as a means of discipline as a child (little weight); (7) Durousseau worked 
continuously through his adult life (little to moderate weight); (8) Durousseau 
enlisted and served in the United States Army for approximately six years 
(moderate weight); (9) Durousseau has supported his two children and is a loving 
and caring father (little weight); (10) Durousseau has been a loving, respectful son 
to his mother and cared for her during several periods of illness and incapacitation 
(moderate weight); (11) Durousseau has been a good brother to his siblings and to 
other family members, helping to care for and watch over his cousins (moderate to 
significant weight); (12) Durousseau saved his cousin’s life and his brother’s life 
(moderate weight); (13) Durousseau has the support of family and friends who 
continue to love him (little weight); (14) Durousseau has alcohol abuse issues on 
both the maternal and paternal sides of his family; despite this, Durousseau has 
never abused alcohol or illicit drugs (very little weight); (15) society can be 
protected by a life sentence without parole (very little weight); (16) Durousseau 
has exhibited good behavior during the trial of this cause (little weight). 
 
 
2.  Durousseau raised the following claims on direct appeal: (1) the trial 
court erred in admitting Williams rule evidence of the two other murders; (2) the 
trial court erred in denying Durousseau’s motion for judgment of acquittal of 
felony murder with robbery as the underlying offense and that the evidence is 
legally insufficient to support the pecuniary gain aggravator; (3) the trial court 
erred in rejecting an expert’s opinion testimony regarding mental mitigation in 
favor of conflicting lay testimony; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support a 
first-degree murder conviction; and (5) the trial court erred in denying 
Durousseau’s motion to declare Florida’s capital sentencing scheme 
 
 
- 4 - 
 
On October 1, 2012, Durousseau filed a motion for postconviction relief in 
the circuit court.  Durousseau raised two claims in his postconviction motion: (1) 
that counsel was ineffective for failing to request additional physical and 
psychiatric testing; and (2) that counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct a 
meaningful voir dire.  However, before the evidentiary hearing, Durousseau 
abandoned his first claim.  On April 9, 2015, the postconviction court began an 
evidentiary hearing that lasted two days.  Ultimately, the postconviction court 
denied Durousseau’s claim that counsel had failed to secure additional physical 
and mental testing.  Durousseau appealed to this Court, arguing that trial counsel 
was ineffective because she failed to conduct meaningful voir dire.  While his 
appeal was pending in this Court, the United States Supreme Court decided Hurst 
v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), holding that Florida’s death penalty sentencing 
statute violated the Sixth Amendment.  In light of Hurst v. Florida, Durousseau 
filed supplemental briefing, arguing that his death sentence should be vacated. 
ANALYSIS 
Durousseau alleges that (1) his counsel was ineffective during voir dire, and 
(2) his death sentence violates Hurst v. Florida.  We first reject Durousseau’s claim 
                                          
 
unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).  Durousseau, 55 So. 
3d at 550. 
 
 
- 5 - 
that his trial counsel, Ann Finnell, was ineffective during voir dire.3  We then hold 
that Durousseau’s death sentence is unconstitutional under Hurst v. Florida. 
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 
First, Durousseau argues that Finnell was ineffective for asking more 
collective questions than individual questions.  Second, Durousseau argues that the 
postconviction court erred in finding that Finnell was not ineffective for failing to 
inquire further of, and move to strike, two specific jurors and one alternate juror.  
We reject both arguments. 
In accordance with Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), we 
review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as follows: 
First, the claimant must identify particular acts or omissions of the 
lawyer that are shown to be outside the broad range of reasonably 
competent performance under prevailing professional standards.  
Second, the clear, substantial deficiency shown must further be 
demonstrated to have so affected the fairness and reliability of the 
proceeding that confidence in the outcome is undermined. 
Long v. State, 118 So. 3d 798, 805 (Fla. 2013) (quoting Bolin v. State, 41 So. 3d 
151, 155 (Fla. 2010)).  Additionally, 
                                          
 
 
3.  In light of our decision that Hurst v. Florida requires us to vacate 
Durousseau’s death sentence, we decline to address Durousseau’s argument that 
Finnell was ineffective because she failed to adequately inquire of the venire 
members about their attitudes toward aggravating and mitigating factors affecting 
the imposition of the death penalty and did not sufficiently question the voir dire 
with the specific aggravators and mitigators that applied to Durousseau. 
 
 
- 6 - 
[t]here is a strong presumption that trial counsel’s performance was 
not deficient.  See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690.  “A fair assessment of 
attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate 
the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of 
counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from 
counsel’s perspective at the time.”  Id. at 689.  The defendant carries 
the burden to “overcome the presumption that, under the 
circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial 
strategy.’ ”  Id. (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 
(1955)).  “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly 
deferential.”  Id.  “[S]trategic decisions do not constitute ineffective 
assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and 
rejected and counsel’s decision was reasonable under the norms of 
professional conduct.”  Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037, 1048 
(Fla. 2000).   Furthermore, where this Court previously has rejected a 
substantive claim on the merits, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective 
for failing to make a meritless argument.  Melendez v. State, 612 So. 
2d 1366, 1369 (Fla. 1992). 
 
In demonstrating prejudice, the defendant must show a 
reasonable probability that “but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, 
the result of the proceeding would have been different.  A reasonable 
probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the 
outcome.”  Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. 
Long, 118 So. 2d at 805-06 (parallel citations omitted). 
 
Because both prongs of the Strickland test present mixed questions of 
law and fact, this Court employs a mixed standard of review, 
deferring to the circuit court’s factual findings that are supported by 
competent, substantial evidence, but reviewing the circuit court’s legal 
conclusions de novo. 
Shellito v. State, 121 So. 3d 445, 451 (Fla. 2013) (citing Mungin v. State, 79 So. 
3d 726, 737 (Fla. 2011); Sochor v. State, 883 So. 2d 766, 771-72 (Fla. 2004)). 
With respect to claims that counsel was ineffective during voir dire, the 
“[e]ffective assistance of trial counsel includes a proficient attempt to empanel a 
 
 
- 7 - 
competent and impartial jury through the proper utilization of voir dire, challenges 
to venire members for cause, and the proper employment of peremptory challenges 
to venire members.”  Nelson v. State, 73 So. 3d 77, 85 (Fla. 2011).  The test for 
competency and impartiality is whether a juror is capable of placing any bias aside 
and is willing to render a verdict recommendation based exclusively on the 
evidence and instruction of law presented at trial.  Id. 
In reviewing an attorney’s performance, we must be highly deferential and 
make every effort to “eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct 
the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct 
from counsel’s perspective at the time.”  Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.  In light of 
the challenges in evaluating counsel’s performance, we must “indulge a strong 
presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable 
professional assistance.”  Id.   If the defendant fails to make a showing of one 
Strickland prong, it is not necessary to analyze whether the defendant satisfies the 
other prong.  Id. at 691-692. 
To establish deficiency, a defendant must first specifically identify acts or 
omissions of counsel that were manifestly outside the wide range of reasonably 
competent performance under prevailing professional norms.  Lynch v. State, 2 So. 
3d 47, 56-57 (Fla. 2008).  Counsel will not be deemed deficient where her actions 
constituted a strategy within the bounds of professional norms.  Occhicone, 768 
 
 
- 8 - 
So. 2d at 1048 (concluding it was a reasonable strategy to not present additional 
evidence at trial to ensure the defendant would have the first and last word during 
closing argument).  “The issue is not what present counsel or this Court might now 
view as the best strategy, but rather whether the strategy was within the broad 
range of discretion afforded to counsel actually responsible for the defense.”  Id. at 
1049. 
First, Durousseau argues that Finnell was ineffective for asking more 
collective questions than individual questions that would have led to an informed 
method of exercising juror challenges.  We affirm the postconviction court’s 
finding that Finnell’s collective questioning did not prejudice Durousseau. 
Durousseau suggests that he may have been prejudiced by trial counsel’s 
failure to ask individual questions of the venire members or by counsel’s failure to 
follow up with additional questions.  Specifically, Durousseau hypothesizes that 
Finnell lacked a complete understanding of the jury in light of her failure to ask 
more individual questions.  Durousseau likewise hypothesizes that as a 
consequence, Finnell’s jury strikes were based on incomplete information.  We 
have previously rejected ineffective assistance claims like these. 
To show prejudice, [the defendant] argues that [his trial counsel] 
could possibly have learned more about the jurors’ views and used his 
peremptory challenges in a different manner to obtain a more defense-
friendly jury.  Such speculation fails to rise to the level of ineffective 
assistance under Strickland. 
 
 
 
- 9 - 
Johnson v. State, 921 So. 2d 490, 503-04 (Fla. 2005) (footnote omitted).  We have 
likewise rejected “alleg[ations] that if counsel had ‘followed up’ during voir dire 
with more specific questions, there would have been a basis for a for-cause 
challenge” as “mere conjecture.”  Reaves v. State, 826 So. 2d 932, 939 (Fla. 2002); 
see also Wade v. State, 156 So. 3d 1004, 1033 (Fla. 2014) (“Wade’s claim that 
‘there would have been a basis for a for cause challenge if counsel had followed up 
during voir dire with more specific questions is speculative.’ ” (quoting Green v. 
State, 975 So. 2d 1090, 1105 (Fla. 2008))). 
Durousseau’s arguments are likewise conjectural and speculative.  
Durousseau asserts that Finnell’s failure to ask sufficient individual questions 
precluded her from obtaining the information necessary to make intelligent use of 
juror challenges.  Durousseau does not identify what information individual 
questioning would have revealed, nor how that information could have changed his 
jury make-up or lead to a different result.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
postconviction court’s finding that Durousseau did not suffer any prejudice. 
Second, Durousseau argues that the postconviction court erred in finding 
that Finnell was not ineffective for failing to exhaust all of her peremptory 
challenges, failing to request additional challenges, and failing to challenge the 
jury panel.  We again affirm the postconviction court’s findings in denying these 
claims. 
 
 
- 10 - 
The postconviction court found that Durousseau did not identify any 
prospective juror that would have been better qualified to sit on the jury than the 
jury eventually seated.  Durousseau’s argument on appeal contains the same defect.  
We have held that this defect is fatal to this type of claim of ineffective assistance 
of counsel.  See, e.g., Peterson v. State, 154 So. 3d 275, 282 (Fla. 2014) (“Peterson 
does not point to any particular venire member [who] would have been better 
qualified to serve in place of a seated juror.”).  Accordingly, we affirm the 
postconviction court’s finding. 
Durousseau also specifically argues that Finnell should have further inquired 
into three of the potential jurors: (1) alternate juror Markley, (2) juror Norrie, and 
(3) juror Cummins.  The postconviction court rejected Durousseau’s ineffective 
assistance of counsel claims regarding Finnell’s questioning and challenging of 
these jurors.  We likewise affirm the postconviction court’s findings with regard to 
these three jurors. 
As to juror Markley, the postconviction court found that Finnell’s actions 
did not prejudice Durousseau because juror Markley was an alternate juror and 
never deliberated in Durousseau’s trial.  We agree.  Assuming that further 
questioning would have revealed information demonstrating, for instance, juror 
Markley’s bias against Durousseau, “prejudice can be shown only where one who 
was actually biased against the defendant sat as a juror.”  Carratelli v. State, 961 
 
 
- 11 - 
So. 2d 312, 324 (Fla. 2007) (emphasis added); see also Dillbeck v. State, 964 So. 
2d 95, 102 (Fla. 2007) (upholding a postconviction court’s finding, which stated, 
“Two of the complained of jurors were alternates only who did not participate in 
the jury’s verdict.  Dillbeck cannot show prejudice based on alternate jurors [who] 
never served.”)  Because juror Markley served only as an alternate juror, we affirm 
the postconviction court’s finding. 
As to jurors Norrie and Cummins—who served on Durousseau’s jury and 
deliberated as to his guilt and punishment—we likewise affirm the postconviction 
court’s findings that Finnell was not deficient for her allegedly insufficient 
questioning of these two jurors.  Durousseau does not identify the particular 
information that further questioning of these two jurors would have revealed, and 
so cannot demonstrate that this undiscovered information would have produced 
grounds to disqualify either juror.  As we earlier noted, a postconviction movant 
cannot demonstrate counsel’s ineffectiveness with speculative assertions that 
further questioning of a juror during voir dire could have developed more 
information that may have disqualified the juror.  See Wade, 156 So. 3d at 1033; 
Green, 975 So. 2d at 1105; Johnson, 921 So. 2d at 503-04; Reaves, 826 So. 2d at 
939. 
Durousseau also argues that Finnell was ineffective for failing to strike 
alternate juror Markley and jurors Norrie and Cummins from the jury.  The 
 
 
- 12 - 
postconviction court also rejected this claim, and we affirm.  A postconviction 
movant “must demonstrate that [a particular juror] was actually biased, not merely 
that there was doubt about [the juror’s] impartiality.”  Owen v. State, 986 So. 2d 
534, 550 (Fla. 2008).  Durousseau does not allege that any of the three were 
actually biased and thus prejudiced Durousseau at trial.  Rather, Durousseau 
merely raises the possibility that alternate juror Markley and jurors Norrie and 
Cummins might have deserved a for-cause challenge, and counsel was ineffective 
for failing to strike these potentially problematic jurors.  Accordingly, we affirm 
the postconviction court’s rejection of this claim.  Id. 
Durousseau also argues that we should not apply the “actual bias” standard 
in this case because Finnell’s failure to better inquire of jurors is responsible for 
Durousseau’s inability to point to specific information about juror bias.  We reject 
this contention because it is the postconviction movant’s responsibility to 
demonstrate juror bias, irrespective of the alleged failures of trial counsel.  See, 
e.g., Boyd v. State, 200 So. 3d 685, 699 (Fla. 2015).  Once the postconviction 
movant identifies the juror’s bias, the movant must identify the manner in which 
trial counsel was deficient by failing to uncover information during voir dire that 
would have demonstrated the bias.  See id.  Accordingly, we reject Durousseau’s 
argument and determine that we appropriately apply the “actual bias” standard in 
this case. 
 
 
- 13 - 
Durousseau has failed to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective during 
voir dire.  Accordingly, we reject his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 
Hurst v. Florida & Hurst 
In Hurst v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court held that Florida’s 
capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional because “[t]he Sixth Amendment 
requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of 
death.  A jury’s mere recommendation is not enough.”  136 S. Ct. at 619.  
Durousseau’s death sentence was imposed under an unconstitutional capital 
sentencing statute.  Hurst v. Florida and Hurst apply retroactively to Durousseau, 
whose sentence became final in 2010.  See Mosley v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly 
S629 (Fla. Dec. 22, 2016).  The remaining question is whether the Hurst error was 
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 
A Hurst error is capable of harmless error review.  See Hurst, 202 So. 3d at 
67.  Here we determine that the Hurst error during Durousseau’s penalty phase 
proceeding was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  As this Court explained 
in Hurst: 
The harmless error test, as set forth in Chapman [v. California, 
386 U.S. 18 (1967),] and progeny, places the burden on the state, as 
the beneficiary of the error, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 
the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, 
alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the 
error contributed to the conviction. 
 
 
 
- 14 - 
Hurst, 202 So. 3d at 68 (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1138 (Fla. 
1986)).  The Court further discussed the lens through which harmless error should 
be evaluated: 
Where the error concerns sentencing, the error is harmless only if 
there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the 
sentence.  See, e.g., Zack v. State, 753 So. 2d 9, 20 (Fla. 2000).  
Although the harmless error test applies to both constitutional errors 
and errors not based on constitutional grounds, “the harmless error 
test is to be rigorously applied,” DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d at 1137, and the 
State bears an extremely heavy burden in cases involving 
constitutional error.  Therefore, in the context of a Hurst v. Florida 
error, the burden is on the State, as the beneficiary of the error, to 
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury’s failure to 
unanimously find all the facts necessary for imposition of the death 
penalty did not contribute to Hurst’s death sentence in this case.  We 
reiterate: 
 
The test is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, a correct 
result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more 
probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an 
overwhelming evidence test.  Harmless error is not a 
device for the appellate court to substitute itself for the 
trier-of-fact by simply weighing the evidence.  The focus 
is on the effect of the error on the trier-of-fact.  
 
DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d at 1139.  “The question is whether there is a 
reasonable possibility that the error affected the [sentence].”  Id. 
 
Hurst, 202 So. 3d at 68 (alteration in original).  Regarding the right to a jury trial, it 
must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have 
unanimously found that there were sufficient aggravating factors and that the 
aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances.  See id. at 44. 
 
 
- 15 - 
 
In the present case, the jury did not make any of the requisite factual 
findings beyond a reasonable doubt.  Rather, the jury only issued a 
recommendation of death by a vote of ten to two.  Further, although the 
aggravating circumstance of a prior violent felony was found unanimously by 
virtue of Durousseau’s previous murder convictions, whether this aggravating 
circumstance was sufficient to impose death requires a unanimous jury 
determination.  Hurst, 202 So. 3d at 44.  Moreover, there is no way of knowing if 
the jury found any of the other three aggravating circumstances unanimously or, if 
any aggravators were unanimously found, whether the jury also unanimously 
found those aggravators sufficient to qualify for a death sentence.  Further, we 
cannot conclude that the two jurors who voted to recommend life found that the 
aggravation outweighed the mitigation. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Hurst violation was not harmless, and 
Durousseau is entitled to a new penalty phase.  As we have done for other capital 
defendants, we reject Durousseau’s argument that section 775.082(2), Florida 
Statutes (2015), entitled him to be resentenced to life imprisonment.  See Hurst, 
202 So. 3d at 44, 63-66. 
CONCLUSION 
 
Because Durousseau’s death sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth 
Amendment right to a jury determination of every critical finding necessary for the 
 
 
- 16 - 
imposition of the death sentence and Florida’s independent right to jury trial, and 
because we conclude that the Hurst error is not harmless beyond a reasonable 
doubt, we vacate Durousseau’s death sentence and remand for a new penalty 
phase. 
 
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. 
CANADY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which 
POLSTON, J., concurs. 
PERRY, Senior Justice, concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
CANADY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
 
I concur with the decision to affirm the denial of relief regarding 
Durousseau’s conviction.  But I dissent from the decision to require a new penalty 
phase.  As I have previously explained, Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), 
should not be given retroactive effect.  See Mosley v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly 
S629, 2016 WL 7406506 (Fla. Dec. 22, 2016) (Canady, J., concurring in part and 
dissenting in part). 
POLSTON, J., concurs. 
 
PERRY, Senior Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
 
I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the postconviction court’s 
denial of relief as it pertains to Durousseau’s convictions and determination that 
 
 
- 17 - 
the Sixth Amendment requires that we vacate Durousseau’s death sentence.  
However, because Florida law requires that Durousseau be sentenced to life in 
prison as a consequence of his unconstitutional death sentence, I disagree with the 
majority’s decision to remand for a new penalty phase proceeding instead of 
remanding for imposition of a life sentence.  See § 775.082(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). 
 
As I explained fully in Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40, 75-76 (Fla. 2016) 
(Perry, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), there is no compelling reason 
for this Court not to apply the plain language of section 775.082(2), Florida 
Statutes.  Because the majority of this Court has determined that Durousseau’s 
death sentence was unconstitutionally imposed, Durousseau is entitled to the clear 
and unambiguous statutory remedy that the Legislature has specified: 
In the event the death penalty in a capital felony is held to be 
unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States 
Supreme Court, the court having jurisdiction over a person previously 
sentenced to death for a capital felony shall cause such person to be 
brought before the court, and the court shall sentence such person to 
life imprisonment as provided in subsection (1). 
 
See § 775.082(2), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added).  The plain language of the statute 
does not rely on a specific amendment to the United States Constitution, nor does it 
refer to a specific decision by this Court or the United States Supreme Court.  
Further, it does not contemplate that all forms of the death penalty in all cases must 
be found unconstitutional.  Instead, the statute uses singular articles to describe the 
circumstances by which the statute is triggered.  Indeed, the statute repeatedly 
 
 
- 18 - 
references a singular defendant being brought before a court for sentencing to life 
imprisonment.  I consequently cannot agree that the statute was intended as a fail-
safe mechanism for when this Court or the United States Supreme Court declared 
that the death penalty was categorically unconstitutional.  Cf. Hurst v. State, 202 
So. 3d at 40 (Perry, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County,  
Jack Marvin Schemer, Judge - Case No. 162003CF010182AXXXMA 
 
Richard Adam Sichta of The Sichta Firm, LLC, Jacksonville, Florida; and Billy 
Horatio Nolas, Chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Office of the Federal Public Defender, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Carine L. Mitz, Assistant Attorney General, 
and Robert James Morris, III, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee