Title: Lamarca v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC17-1179
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: January 30, 2018

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-1179 
____________ 
 
ANTHONY LAMARCA,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Appellee. 
 
[January 30, 2018] 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Anthony Lamarca’s appeal of the circuit court’s order 
denying Lamarca’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 
3.851.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
Lamarca’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 Lamarca’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, Lamarca responded to this Court’s order to 
show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 
After reviewing Lamarca’s response to the order to show cause, as well as 
the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Lamarca is not entitled to relief.  
Lamarca was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a 
vote of eleven to one.  LaMarca v. State, 785 So. 2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 2001).  
Lamarca’s sentence of death became final in 2001.  LaMarca v. Florida, 534 U.S. 
925 (2001).  Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lamarca’s sentence of 
death.  See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of 
Lamarca’s motion. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lamarca, we 
caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken.  It is so 
ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. 
LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. 
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 Pinellas County,  
Nancy Moate Ley, Judge - Case No. 52199502070XXXXNO 
 
Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida; James Vincent 
Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Ali A. Shakoor, Assistant 
Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida,  
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Scott A. Browne, 
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, 
 
for Appellee