Title: Gudinas v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC17-919
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: January 30, 2018

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-919 
____________ 
 
THOMAS LEE GUDINAS,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
[January 30, 2018] 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Thomas Lee Gudinas’s appeal of the circuit court’s 
order denying Gudinas’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 
Procedure 3.851.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
Gudinas’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 Gudinas’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, Gudinas responded to this Court’s order to 
show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 
After reviewing Gudinas’s response to the order to show cause, as well as 
the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Gudinas is not entitled to relief.  
Gudinas was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a 
vote of ten to two.  Gudinas v. State, 693 So. 2d 953, 959 (Fla. 1997).  His 
sentence of death became final in 1997.  Gudinas v. Florida, 522 U.S. 936 (1997).  
Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Gudinas’s sentence of death.  See 
Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gudinas’s 
motion. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Gudinas, 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 Orange County,  
A. James Craner, Judge - Case No. 481994CF007132000AOX 
 
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 Doris Meacham, 
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida, 
 
for Appellee