Title: Jackson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC21-754
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: January 20, 2022

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC21-754 
____________ 
 
ETHERIA VERDELL JACKSON, 
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Appellee. 
 
January 20, 2022 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
 
We have for review Etheria Verdell Jackson’s appeal of the 
circuit court’s order summarily denying his successive motion for 
postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 
Procedure 3.851.1  In that motion, Jackson argues that he is 
entitled to retroactive application of our decision in State v. Poole, 
297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020), which receded from Hurst v. State, 202 
So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), except as to the requirement that “a jury 
must unanimously find the existence of a statutory aggravating 
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 
 
- 2 - 
circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Poole, 297 So. 3d at 
491. 
After carefully reviewing Jackson’s arguments, we conclude 
that he is not entitled to relief.  Jackson was convicted of first-
degree murder and sentenced to death in accordance with the jury’s 
seven-to-five vote recommendation.  Jackson v. State, 530 So. 2d 
269, 271 (Fla. 1988).  His death sentence became final in 1989.  
Jackson v. Florida, 488 U.S. 1050 (1989) (denying petition for 
certiorari).  Because his death sentence was final prior to Ring v. 
Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), Poole does not apply retroactively to 
him.  See Randolph v. State, 320 So. 3d 629, 631 (Fla. 2021); Asay 
v. State, 210 So. 3d 1, 22 (Fla. 2016).2  We also summarily reject 
Jackson’s claims that he is entitled to relief under either the Eighth 
Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. 
 
 
2.  We further conclude that Jackson’s Sixth Amendment 
claim is procedurally barred.  In his prior successive postconviction 
motion, Jackson raised essentially the same arguments advanced in 
his current motion.  See Hendrix v. State, 136 So. 3d 1122, 1125 
(Fla. 2014) (“Claims raised and rejected in prior postconviction 
proceedings are procedurally barred from being relitigated in a 
successive motion.”); see also Fla. R. Crim P. 3.851(e)(2). 
 
- 3 - 
Accordingly, because none of Jackson’s claims warrant relief, 
we affirm the challenged order. 
 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, 
COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION 
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, 
Tatiana R. Salvador, Judge 
Case No. 161985CF012620AXXXMA 
 
Eric Pinkard, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Natalia C. Reyna-
Pimiento, Julissa R. Fontán, and Heather A. Forgét, Assistant 
Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, 
Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant 
 
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Janine D. Robinson, Assistant 
Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee