Title: Davis v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC17-1259
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: January 29, 2018

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-1259 
____________ 
 
MARK ALLEN DAVIS,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
[January 29, 2018] 
 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Mark Allen Davis’s appeal of the circuit court’s order 
denying Davis’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 
3.851.  This Court has jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.   
Davis’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 Davis’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. 
State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017).  After this 
 
 
- 2 - 
Court decided Hitchcock, Davis responded to this Court’s order to show cause 
arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 
After reviewing Davis’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the 
State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Davis is not entitled to relief.  Davis 
was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 
eight to four.  Davis v. State, 620 So. 2d 152, 153 n.3 (Fla. 1993).  Davis’s 
sentence of death became final in 1994.  Davis v. Florida, 510 U.S. 1170 (1994).  
Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Davis’s sentence of death.  See 
Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Davis’s 
motion. 
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Davis, we 
caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken.  It is so 
ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. 
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. 
LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. 
QUINCE, J., recused. 
 
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,  
Chris Thom Helinger, Judge - Case No. 521985CF008933XXXXNO 
 
Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida,  
 
 
for Appellant 
 
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Candance M. 
Sabella, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida,  
 
 
for Appellee