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-phase 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 for the sexual battery, 

kidnapping, and burglary, and five years’ imprisonment for the grand theft.” Id. at 

1062.

We affirmed Brant’s convictions and sentences 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, we 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. State, 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, 197 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 fails 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. Mullens, 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 

(2019); 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); Dessaure 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