Title: Anderson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC17-884
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: January 26, 2018

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-884 
____________ 
 
RICHARD HAROLD ANDERSON,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
[January 26, 2018] 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Richard Harold Anderson’s appeal of the circuit court’s 
order denying Anderson’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 
Procedure 3.851.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
Anderson’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 Anderson’s appeal pending the disposition of 
Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017).  
 
 
- 2 - 
After this Court decided Hitchcock, Anderson responded to this Court’s order to 
show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 
After reviewing Anderson’s response to the order to show cause, as well as 
the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Anderson is not entitled to relief.  
Anderson was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by 
a vote of eleven to one.  Anderson v. State, 574 So. 2d 87, 90 (Fla. 1991).  
Anderson’s sentence of death became final in 1991.  Anderson v. Florida, 502 U.S. 
834 (1991).  Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Anderson’s sentence of 
death.  See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of 
Anderson’s motion. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Anderson, 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. 
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. 
 
 
- 3 - 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County,  
Michelle Sisco, Judge - Case No. 291987CF008047000AHC 
 
James Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Maria E. DeLiberato, 
Julissa Fontán, and Chelsea Ray Shirley, 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