# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC18

- 1061

____________ CHARLES GROVER BRANT, Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. November 7, 2019
PER CURIAM.
Charles Grover Brant , a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit

court ’ s order summarily denying his successive motion for postconviction relief,
which was filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
For conduct arising from the 2004 killing of Sara Radfar, “ Brant pleaded guilty to first

- degree murder, sexual battery, kidnapping, grand theft of a motor vehicle, and burglary with assault or battery

. ” Brant v. State , 21 So. 3d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 2009). “ After a failed attempt to seat a penalty

- pha se jury

. . . Brant waived his right to a jury, and the penalty phase proceeded before the trial judge .” Brant v.- 2

- State , 197 So. 3d 1051, 1057 (Fla. 2016). The trial judge “sentenced Brant to death for the murder, concurrent terms of life imprisonment fo r the sexual battery, kidnapping, and burglary, and five years’ imprisonment for the grand theft.” Id. at
1062.
We affirmed Brant’s conviction s and sentence s on direct appeal in 2009

. Brant , 21 So. 3d at 1289. In 2014, Brant appealed the denial of his initial motion for postconviction relief and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
. Brant , 197
So. 3d at 1056. While his case was pending in this Court , the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016)

. Accordingly, w e permitted Brant “to file supplemental briefing to address the impact of Hurst on his sentence

. ” Brant , 197 So. 3d at 1079. In 2016, we rejected
Brant’s Hurst v. Florida claim , affirmed the denial of his initial postconviction
motion , and denied his habeas petition. Brant , 197 So. 3d at 1079. In 2017, Brant filed a successive postconviction motion, arguing that his
death sentence was unconstitutional under Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. Stat e , 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) , cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017) . The circuit court summarily denied the motion . Brant appealed , and we directed the parties to show

cause why the circuit court ’ s order should not be affirmed based on Mullens v.
State , 1 97 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 672 (2017).- 3

- We conclude that the circuit court properly denied relief

. Brant’s claim is procedurally barred to the extent it was raised in his earlier postconviction appeal ,

see Brant , 197 So. 3d at 1079, and additionally fail s on the merits. In Mullens , we held that a defendant ’s waiver of his right to a penalty phase jury was not rendered invalid by the subsequent changes in the law wrought by Hurst v. Florida and
Hurst v. State

. Mu llens , 197 So. 3d at 38

- 40

. Since issuing Mullens , we have consistently reaffirmed the principle that a defendant who waives his or her right to

a penalty phase jury is not entitled to relief under the Hurst decisions

. See, e.g. , Lynch v. State , 254 So. 3d 312, 322 (Fla. 2018) , cert. denied , 139 S. Ct. 1266 (201 9 ) ; Hutchinson v. State , 243 So. 3d 880, 883 (Fla.) , cert. denied , 139 S. Ct.
261 (2018) ; Rodgers v. State , 242 So. 3d 276, 276

- 77 (Fla.) , cert. denied , 139 S. Ct. 592 (2018) ; Allred v. State , 230 So. 3d 412, 413 (Fla. 2017); Dess a ure v. State , 230 So. 3d 411, 412 (Fla. 2017)

. Brant is among those defendants who validly waived the right to a penalty phase jury, see Brant , 197 So. 3d at 1076 , and his arguments do not compel departing from our precedent. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court ’ s order summarily denying Brant’ s successive motion for postconviction relief.
It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK , and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.- 4

- NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Michelle Sisco, Judge

- Case No. 292004CF012631000AHC
Marie

- Louise Samuels Parmer of Samuels Parmer Law Firm, P.A., Tampa, Florida, for Appellant Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Christina Z. Pacheco, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee