Florida Supreme Court dismisses one of three petitions related to new capital sentencing statute
On Wednesday, Aug. 2, the Court dismissed Hertz's petition seeking review of the trial court's application of Florida's new capital sentencing statute to his Hurst resentencing proceeding.
As you may recall, there were three petitions pending at the Florida Supreme Court related to the application of Florida’s “new” 8-4 capital sentencing scheme to Hurst resentencing proceedings that were pending when the new law was enacted on April 20.1 The three cases were Hertz, Looney, and Gonzalez.
Prior TFDP coverage on this litigation (in chronological order):
Florida Supreme Court stays two Hurst resentencing proceedings in Wakulla County
State takes opposing positions on whether the Florida Supreme Court should review new statute.
State changes its mind on dismissal in case pending at Florida Supreme Court.
Florida Supreme Court grants Petitioner’s motion to amend and strikes State’s motion to dismiss in Gonzalez
Here’s the latest…
Hertz Dismissed; Looney Remains Pending
Hertz and Looney are codefendants whose Wakulla County resentencing, which was granted in light of Hurst, is stayed pending the Court’s decision.
On August 2, the Court issued a very short Order, in which the full Court joined, dismissing Hertz’s petition in light of Hertz’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. As a result, the Court denied the State’s Motion to Dismiss as moot. Here’s the Order in full:
Looney remains pending for the moment. However, the State’s Motion to Dismiss remains unresolved. The difference between Hertz and Looney appears to be the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which was not filed in Looney.
Recent Filings in Gonzalez
There was also some movement in Gonzalez this week.
Per the Court’s July 12 Order, covered here, Gonzalez was to file his amended petition on or before July 31, to which the State has until August 9 to respond.
On July 31, Gonzalez filed an Addendum Petition for Writ of Prohibition; Addendum Petition for Writ of Certiorari (the “Addendum Petition”), which states that it is “designed to fit together with the initial petition such that the State’s initial response has previously been filed and won’t be duplicated here.” It appears to be an addition to the original petition filed. The full document can be downloaded here.
Also on July 31, Gonzalez filed an appendix to the Addendum Petition, a Motion for Oral Argument, and a Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction to the Trial Court for Purpose of Ruling on the Four Pending Orders of the Addendum Appendix (the “Motion to Relinquish”). In the Motion to Relinquish, Gonzalez requests that the Court relinquish jurisdiction (i.e., send the case back) to the trial court “for the limited purpose of” allowing the trial court to enter four orders “that were not entered by the date required for filing th[e] Addendum Petition.” Gonzalez then requests the ability to supplement the appendix to the Addendum Petition with those orders once entered by the trial court (assuming the Motion to Relinquish is granted).