Title: Lucas v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-589 
____________ 
 
HAROLD GENE LUCAS,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
[January 24, 2018] 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Harold Gene Lucas’s appeal of the circuit court’s order 
denying Lucas’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 
3.851.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
Lucas’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 Lucas’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, Lucas responded to this Court’s order to show cause 
arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 
After reviewing Lucas’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Lucas is not entitled to relief.  Lucas 
was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 
eleven to one.  See Lucas v. State, 613 So. 2d 408, 409 (Fla. 1992).1  Lucas’s 
sentence of death became final in 1993.  Lucas v. Florida, 510 U.S. 845 (1993).  
Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lucas’s sentence of death.  See 
Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Lucas’s 
motion. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lucas, we 
caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken.  It is so 
ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. 
LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. 
QUINCE, J., recused. 
 
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. 
                                          
 
 
1.  While the jury’s vote recommending a sentence of death is not reflected 
in this Court’s opinion on direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Eleventh Circuit stated that the jury recommended a sentence of death by a vote of 
eleven to one.  Lucas v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 682 F.3d 1342, 1348-49 (11th Cir. 
2012); see Appellant’s Br. in Resp. to Show Cause Order, Lucas v. State, No. 
SC17-589 (Fla. Oct. 12, 2017), at 3. 
 
 
- 3 - 
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 Lee County,  
Joseph Cardwell Fuller, Jr., Judge - Case No. 361976CF000588000ACH 
 
James Vigianno, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Ann Marie Mirialakis, and 
Ali Andrew Shakoor, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle 
Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, 
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christina Z. Pacheco, Assistant Attorney 
General, Tampa, Florida, 
 
for Appellee