Filed: May 11, 2017
Latest Update: May 11, 2017
Summary: PER CURIAM . This case is before the Court on the petition of Jesse Guardado for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. The underlying facts of this case were described in this Court's opinion on direct appeal. Guardado v. State , 965 So.2d 108 , 110-12 (Fla. 2007). Guardado pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree and robbery with a weapon. After hearing evidence at the penalty phase, the jury returned a unanimous recommendation that Guarda
Summary: PER CURIAM . This case is before the Court on the petition of Jesse Guardado for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. The underlying facts of this case were described in this Court's opinion on direct appeal. Guardado v. State , 965 So.2d 108 , 110-12 (Fla. 2007). Guardado pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree and robbery with a weapon. After hearing evidence at the penalty phase, the jury returned a unanimous recommendation that Guardad..
More
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court on the petition of Jesse Guardado for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const.
The underlying facts of this case were described in this Court's opinion on direct appeal. Guardado v. State, 965 So.2d 108, 110-12 (Fla. 2007). Guardado pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree and robbery with a weapon. After hearing evidence at the penalty phase, the jury returned a unanimous recommendation that Guardado be sentenced to death. The trial court found five1 aggravating factors and nineteen2 nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. We affirmed Guardado's convictions and sentence of death. We also affirmed the denial of Guardado's initial postconviction motion. Guardado v. State, 176 So.3d 886 (Fla. 2015).
In his present habeas petition, Guardado argues that he is entitled to relief pursuant to Hurst v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), petition for cert. filed, No. 16-998 (U.S. Feb. 13, 2017). We agree with Guardado that Hurst is applicable in his case. See Mosely v. State, 209 So.3d 1248 (Fla. 2016). However, because we find that the Hurst error in this case is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we deny Guardado's petition. As we stated in Davis v. State, 207 So.3d 142, 175 (Fla. 2016):
[T]he jury unanimously found all of the necessary facts for the imposition of death sentences by virtue of its unanimous recommendations.... The unanimous recommendations here are precisely what we determined in Hurst to be constitutionally necessary to impose a sentence of death.
Accordingly, the Hurst violation in this case is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and, as in Davis, does not entitle Guardado to relief.
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur in result.
QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.
QUINCE, J., dissenting.
I cannot agree with the majority's finding that the Hurst error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As I've stated previously, "[b]ecause Hurst `requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death,' the error cannot be harmless where such a factual determination was not made." Hall v. State, 212 So.3d 1001, 1036-37 (Fla. 2017) (Quince, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Hurst v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 616, 619, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016)); see also Truehill v. State, 211 So.3d 930, 961 (Fla. 2017) (Quince, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
