Case Name: Charles William FINNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-12-28
Citations: 260 So. 3d 231
Docket Number: No. SC18-1495
Parties: Charles William FINNEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 260
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
Charles William FINNEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. SC18-1495
Supreme Court of Florida.
December 28, 2018
Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Suzanne Keffer, Chief Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Scott Gavin, Staff Attorney, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Christina Z. Pacheco, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Charles William Finney's appeal of the postconviction court's order denying Finney's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
Finney's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida , - U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161, 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). Finney responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied , - U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513, 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), and Finney v. State , 235 So.3d 279 (Fla.), cert. denied , - U.S. -, 139 S.Ct. 197, - L.Ed.2d - (2018), should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Finney's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that our prior denial of Finney's postconviction appeal raising similar claims is a procedural bar to the claim at issue in this appeal, which in any event, does not entitle him to Hurst relief. See Finney , 235 So.3d at 279-80 ; Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217 ; see also Foster v. State , No. SC18-860, 258 So.3d 1248, 1251-52, 2018 WL 6379348, at *2-4 (Fla. Dec. 6, 2018) (explaining why the "elements of 'capital first-degree murder' " argument derived from Hurst and the legislation implementing Hurst "has no merit"). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Finney's motion.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, J., concur in result.
QUINCE, J., recused.