Title: Zack v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC18-243
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: October 4, 2018

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC18-243 
____________ 
 
MICHAEL DUANE ZACK, III, 
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Appellee. 
 
October 4, 2018 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying a motion to 
vacate a sentence of death under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.  This 
Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
 
Michael Duane Zack, III, was convicted for the 1996 sexual assault and 
murder of Ravonne Smith.  We previously described the facts in Zack v. State, 753 
So. 2d 9, 13-14 (Fla. 2000).  We affirmed Zack’s convictions and sentence.  Id. at 
26.  His sentence became final on October 2, 2000, when the United States 
Supreme Court denied certiorari review.  Zack v. Florida, 531 U.S. 858 (2000). 
 
- 2 - 
 
We affirmed the denial of Zack’s initial motion for postconviction relief and 
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Zack v. State, 911 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 
2005).  Zack raised a claim pursuant to Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), in 
his successive motion for postconviction relief.  The circuit court denied the claim 
without a hearing.  This Court, relying on Cherry v. State, 781 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 
2000), held that Zack failed to demonstrate that his IQ was below 70.  Zack v. 
State, 911 So. 2d 1190, 1202 (Fla. 2005).   Additionally, we denied Zack’s second 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 
(2004).  Zack then filed a second successive postconviction motion raising claims 
pursuant to Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014).  We affirmed the circuit 
court’s denial of that motion.  Zack v. State, 228 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 2017).  We also 
denied Zack’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming relief pursuant to Hurst 
v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016).  Zack, 228 So. 3d at 41. 
 
Zack filed his third successive motion for postconviction relief on January 
11, 2017, raising five claims.  The circuit court summarily denied the motion, 
finding: 
The Supreme Court of Florida has held that Hurst v. Florida 
and Hurst v. State do not apply retroactively to any death sentence 
that became final prior to the issuance of the United States Supreme 
Court’s June 24, 2002, opinion of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 
(2002).  See Asay v. State, 210 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016); Mosley v. State, 
209 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 2016).  It is uncontested that Defendant’s 
sentence was final before Ring was decided. 
 
- 3 - 
. . .  Consequently, the Court concludes that Defendant is not 
entitled to relief as to any of his present claims as each depends on a 
retroactive application of the Hurst decisions.  Additionally, the 
Florida Supreme Court has recently addressed Defendant’s fifth claim 
as it pertains to a jury finding of intellectual disability, and found it to 
be without merit. 
(some citations omitted).  Zack now appeals. 
 
In a motion governed by rule 3.851, where a defendant makes a facially 
sufficient claim that requires a factual determination, the circuit court must hold an 
evidentiary hearing.  See Mann v. State, 112 So. 3d 1158, 1161 (Fla. 2013).  
Nevertheless, “claims may be summarily denied when they are legally insufficient, 
should have been brought on direct appeal, or are positively refuted by the record.”  
Id. (quoting Marek v. State, 8 So. 3d 1123, 1127 (Fla. 2009)).  “Because a 
postconviction court’s decision whether to grant an evidentiary hearing on a rule 
3.851 motion is ultimately based on written materials before the court, its ruling is 
tantamount to a pure question of law, subject to de novo review.”  Marek v. State, 
8 So. 3d 1123, 1127 (Fla. 2009).   
 
Here, as a matter of law, Zack is not entitled to relief.  See Hitchcock v. 
State, 226 So. 3d 216, 217 (Fla. 2017); Oats v. Jones, 220 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 2017); 
Asay v. State, 224 So. 3d 695, 703 (Fla. 2017); Asay v. State, 210 So. 3d 1, 22 (Fla. 
2016).  We have previously addressed and rejected each of the claims presented.  
Zack has not provided a compelling argument for this Court to reconsider our 
 
- 4 - 
previous rulings.  Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s order summarily 
denying Zack’s claims. 
 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., 
concur. 
CANADY, C.J., concurs in result. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Escambia County,  
Linda L. Nobles, Judge - Case No. 171996CF002517XXXAXX  
  
Robert S. Friedman, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Dawn B. Macready and 
Stacy Biggart, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Northern Region, 
Tallahassee, Florida,  
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Senior Assistant 
Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida,  
 
for Appellee