Title: Alston v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC17-499, SC17-983
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: January 22, 2018

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-499 
____________ 
 
PRESSLEY BERNARD ALSTON,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-983 
____________ 
 
PRESSLEY BERNARD ALSTON,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
JULIE L. JONES, etc.,  
Respondent. 
 
[January 22, 2018] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
Pressley Bernard Alston appeals the circuit court’s order denying his motion 
filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and petitions this Court 
 
- 2 - 
for a writ of habeas corpus.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. 
Const.   
Alston seeks 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 Alston’s appeal and consideration of his habeas petition pending the 
disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, No. 17-
6180, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017).  After this Court decided Hitchcock, Alston 
responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not 
be dispositive in both cases. 
After reviewing Alston’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Alston is not entitled to relief.  Alston 
was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 
nine to three, and his sentence of death became final in 1999.  Alston v. State, 723 
So. 2d 148, 153 (Fla. 1998).  Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Alston’s 
sentence of death.  See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
denial of Alston’s motion and deny his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Alston, we 
caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken.  It is so 
ordered. 
 
- 3 - 
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. 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County,  
Russell Healey, Judge - Case No. 161995CF005326AXXXMA 
And an Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus  
 
Robert A. Norgard of Norgard, Norgard, & Chastang, Bartow, Florida, and Billy 
H. Nolas, Chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee, 
Florida, 
 
for Appellant/Petitioner 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer L. Keegan, Assistant Attorney 
General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Appellee/Respondent