Case Name: Manuel Antonio RODRIGUEZ, Appellant v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-08-09
Citations: 250 So. 3d 616
Docket Number: No. SC15–1278.
Parties: Manuel Antonio RODRIGUEZ, Appellant
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 250
Pages: 616–616

Head Matter:
Manuel Antonio RODRIGUEZ, Appellant
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. SC15-1278.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug. 9, 2016.
This cause is before this Court on Rodriguez's appeal of the summary denial of his "Motion for Determination of Intellectual Disability and Successive Motion to Vacate Death Sentences with Special Request for Leave to Amend" pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and 3.203. Rodriguez's motion was filed on May 22, 2015. Rodriguez, who had never before raised an intellectual disability claim, asserted that there was "good cause" pursuant to Rule 3.203(f) for his failure to assert a previous claim of intellectual disability and only after the United States Supreme Court decided Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014), did he have the basis for asserting an intellectual disability claim. The trial court rejected the motion as time barred, concluding there was no reason that Rodriguez could not have previously raised a claim of intellectual disability based on Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). The trial court further concluded that Rodriguez could not have relied on Cherry v. State, 959 So.2d 702 (Fla. 2007), which established the bright-line cut-off of 70 for IQ scores disapproved of in Hall, because he never raised an intellectual disability claim after Atkins as required by Rule 3.203.
We have considered the issues raised, and affirm the trial court's denial of Rodriguez's motion as time-barred for the reasons stated by the trial court.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

Opinion:
CANADY, J., concurs in result.
QUINCE, J., dissents.