Harold Lee Harvey Jr. v. State of Florida, 260 So. 3d 906

Harold Lee Harvey, Jr. was convicted in 1986 of murdering Ruby and William Boyd and sentenced to death; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
Harvey’s death sentences became final in 1989 when the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
In December 2016 Harvey filed a successive Rule 3.851 postconviction motion asserting (1) intellectual disability and (2) entitlement to relief under Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State.
The postconviction court summarily denied the motion; Harvey appealed the denial to the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether the record conclusively showed Harvey was not entitled to relief and whether an evidentiary hearing was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of intellectual-disability claim	Harvey: claim timely because filed after Walls v. State	State: claim untimely; Atkins-based claim should have been raised earlier	Court: untimely; record conclusively shows no relief
Entitlement to Hurst relief	Harvey: Hurst errors justify relief; jury recommendation 11–1 and alleged mitigation failures make error non-harmless	State: Hurst does not apply retroactively to cases final before Ring v. Arizona	Court: Hurst relief denied; Harvey’s case final before Ring, so not entitled
Need for evidentiary hearing on intellectual disability	Harvey: new claim warrants an evidentiary hearing	State: record conclusively shows untimeliness and no entitlement	Court: no hearing required; summary denial proper
Prejudice from penalty-phase counsel failures (Hurst-related)	Harvey/concurring justice: counsel failed to develop mitigation; combined with nonunanimous recommendation, error not harmless	State: procedural bars and finality foreclose Hurst relief	Majority: did not reach merits due to finality; concurrence would apply Hurst and grant new penalty phase

Harvey v. State, 529 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1988) (direct-appeal decision affirming convictions and sentences)
Harvey v. State, 946 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2006) (postconviction history addressing counsel performance and mitigation)
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (trial court’s factfinding in capital cases must satisfy Sixth Amendment jury-sentencing principles)
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida application of Hurst holding)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (capital aggravating-factor findings by judge violate Sixth Amendment when jury does not make necessary findings)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (execution of intellectually disabled persons is unconstitutional)
Walls v. State, 213 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 2016) (intellectual-disability and postconviction timeliness context)
Rodriguez v. State, 250 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 2016) (untimeliness of late-raised Atkins claims)
Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017) (Hurst relief does not extend to cases final before Ring)