Court Opinion

ID: 9873048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 21:20:30.631184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:31.448960
License: Public Domain

CANADY, J.,
concurring in part and disseriting in part.
I agree with the decision to affirm the denial of relief regarding Anderson’s conviction, and I agree that Anderson’s habe-as petition should be denied. But I dissent from the decision to require a new penalty phase. As I have previously explained, Hurst v. Florida, — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), should not be given retroactive effect. See Mosley v. State, 41 Fla. L. Weekly S629, S641, 209 So.3d 1248, 1284-92, 2016 WL 7406506, at *27-32 (Fla. Dec. 22, 2016) (Canady, J„ concurring in part and dissenting in part).
POLSTON, J., concurs.