More dismissal confusion at the Florida Supreme Court
An update on the confusion in the three cases pending at the Florida Supreme Court regarding the application of Florida's new capital sentencing scheme to Hurst resentencing proceedings
The application of Florida’s new capital sentencing statute is at issue in three cases currently pending at the Florida Supreme Court—Hertz, Looney, and Gonzalez. In two of the cases, the Court granted the petitioners’ emergency motion to stay the underlying Hurst resentencing proceedings pending in Wakulla County. (More on that here.)
As TFDP previously covered, there’s been some confusion in each of the three cases about whether the State wants the Court to keep the petitions. In Gonzalez, the State opposed Gonzalez’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Meanwhile, the State filed motions to dismiss in Hertz and Looney. These seemingly opposite positions from the State are covered here.
After the State’s motions to dismiss were filed in Hertz and Looney, petitioners filed notices of voluntary dismissal—suggesting the parties are on the same page that the petitions should be dismissed.
Then the State changed its mind on dismissal in Gonzalez, filing a motion to dismiss (similar to the filings in Hertz and Looney but opposite to the prior filing in Gonzalez). That is covered here. The petitioner’s response to the State’s motion to dismiss seems to suggest Gonzalez has now made an about-face on dismissal.
As stated above, Gonzalez previously sought to dismiss the case by filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. However, in a response to the State’s Motion to Dismiss filed July 6, Gonzalez argued the Court should keep the case. The response further states that those in the group of cases in which Gonzalez belongs (Hurst resentencing proceedings pending when the new capital sentencing statute was passed) “should be invited to file petitions and become members of the ongoing litigation.”
How the Court addresses the dismissal chaos and each of these three petitions remains to be seen.