James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida, 226 So. 3d 216

James Ernest Hitchcock is a Florida death-row inmate whose death sentence became final in 2000 after direct review.
Hitchcock filed a successive Rule 3.851 postconviction motion after Hurst v. Florida and this Court’s Hurst v. State decision, arguing those decisions render his death sentence unconstitutional.
The circuit court summarily denied relief, relying on this Court’s decision in Asay v. State, which limited retroactive application of Hurst.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding Asay precludes Hurst-based relief for defendants whose sentences were final before Ring v. Arizona.
Separate opinions: Justice Lewis concurred in result but argued for a preservation-based retroactivity approach; Justice Pariente dissented, arguing Hurst errors (including lack of unanimous jury recommendation) implicate Eighth Amendment reliability and warrant full retroactivity for Hitchcock.

Issue	Hitchcock's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Retroactivity of Hurst v. State to sentences final before Ring	Hurst (and Hurst v. Florida) renders his death sentence unconstitutional and should apply retroactively	Asay controls: Hurst does not apply retroactively to defendants whose sentences were final before Ring	Asay forecloses relief; Hurst not retroactive to pre-Ring final sentences
Harmless-error/unanimity where jury recommendation was not unanimous	Jury’s nonunanimous 10–2 recommendation makes Hurst error not harmless; requires new penalty phase	Any Hurst claim is foreclosed by non-retroactivity, so harmlessness analysis is moot	Court did not reach harmlessness due to retroactivity ruling
Preservation-based exception to retroactivity	Hurst should be applied retroactively at least for defendants who preserved Ring-type claims at trial/direct appeal	State rejects retroactivity regardless of preservation; follows Asay’s bright line	Majority rejects preservation exception; concurrence (Lewis) would adopt preservation approach
Eighth Amendment / due process arbitrariness argument	Denying relief creates arbitrary, unequal application of death penalty and violates Eighth Amendment and due process	Retroactivity rule (Asay) is permissible; uniform denial for pre-Ring final sentences	Dissent (Pariente) would grant relief on Eighth Amendment/unreliability grounds; majority rejects these claims based on Asay

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (established jury factfinding rule for death eligibility)
Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (interpreting Hurst v. Florida and requiring jury findings)
Asay v. State, 210 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2016) (held Hurst not retroactive to defendants whose sentences were final before Ring)
Hitchcock v. State, 755 So.2d 638 (Fla. 2000) (Hitchcock’s direct-appeal decision making his sentence final)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (announced rule limiting judge-found facts increasing punishment)
James v. State, 615 So.2d 668 (Fla. 1993) (state precedent granting relief where defendant preserved issue before a rule developed)
Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1980) (retroactivity framework used in Florida)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (federal retroactivity standard)
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (retroactivity/harmless-error discussion)
Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (retroactivity precedent discussed)