Title: Suggs v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-1225 
____________ 
 
ERNEST D. SUGGS,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC16-1066 
____________ 
 
ERNEST D. SUGGS, 
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
JULIE L. JONES, etc.,  
Appellee. 
 
[January 22, 2018] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Ernest D. Suggs’ appeal of the circuit court’s order 
denying Suggs’ motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, 
 
- 2 - 
as well as Suggs’ motion for rehearing on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  
This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.   
Suggs’ motion and habeas petition 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 Suggs’ appeal and consideration 
of his motion for rehearing 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, Suggs responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why 
Hitchcock should not be dispositive in both cases. 
After reviewing Suggs’ response to the order to show cause, as well as the 
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Suggs is not entitled to relief.  Suggs 
was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 
seven to five.  Suggs v. State, 644 So. 2d 64, 66 (Fla. 1994).  His sentence of death 
became final in 1995.  Suggs v. Florida, 514 U.S. 1083 (1995).  Thus, Hurst does 
not apply retroactively to Suggs’ sentence of death.  See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 
217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Suggs’ motion and deny Suggs’ motion 
for rehearing on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
 
- 3 - 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Suggs, 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 Walton County,  
Kelvin Clyde Wells, Judge - Case No. 661990CF000338CFAXMX 
And an Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus  
 
Robert S. Friedman, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Dawn B. Macready, and 
Stacy Biggart, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Northern Region, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant/Petitioner 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa Hopkins, Assistant Attorney 
General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Appellee/Respondent