Court Opinion

ID: 9876673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 15:29:09.351962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:13.606445
License: Public Domain

CANADY, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the conclusion that Zack’s IQ scores justify the denial of his intellectual disability claim. I also agree that Zack is not entitled to Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), postconviction relief and that the habeas petition should therefore be denied. But I would not rely on Asay v. State, 210 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2016). Instead, I would deny the Hurst claim on two grounds. First, no Hurst error occurred in this case—given the contemporaneous convictions establishing aggravation. See Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40, 77-83 (Fla. 2016) (Canady, J., dissenting). Second, in any event Hurst should not be given retroactive application. See Mosley v. State, 209 So.3d 1248, 1285-91 (Fla. 2016) (Canady, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
POLSTON, J., concurs.