James Milton Dailey v. State of Florida, 247 So. 3d 390

James Milton Dailey was sentenced to death after a jury unanimously recommended death; original penalty-phase errors led to reversal and remand for resentencing.
On remand the trial judge alone resentenced Dailey to death; that sentence became final in 1996 after this Court affirmed the new sentence on direct appeal.
Dailey filed a Rule 3.851 motion seeking relief under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida and this Court’s Hurst v. State decision.
The State argued (and the Court relied on precedent) that Hurst does not apply retroactively to cases that were final before Hurst, per this Court’s retroactivity framework (see Hitchcock v. State).
The Supreme Court of Florida denied Dailey’s Hurst-based challenge; Dailey argued in response that Hurst should apply retroactively because invalid aggravators had been considered and the judge, not a jury, imposed death on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hurst v. Florida applies retroactively to Dailey’s death sentence	Dailey: Hurst should apply retroactively; his resentencing involved judge-alone imposition and the jury’s recommendation was tainted by invalid aggravators	State: Hurst does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before Hurst; Hitchcock controls	Denied — Hurst does not apply retroactively to Dailey’s sentence, so no relief granted
Whether the jury’s unanimous recommendation cures Hurst error when invalid aggravators were considered	Dailey: Even though the jury was unanimous, it relied on aggravators later struck, so harmless-error cannot be presumed	State: The jury’s unanimous recommendation and prior appellate review render Hurst inapplicable retroactively; harmlessness analysis is foreclosed by retroactivity ruling	Court did not reach a merits-based Hurst harmlessness reversal because retroactivity bars relief

Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (Supreme Court holding Florida’s capital sentencing scheme unconstitutional under Ring principles)
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida Supreme Court decision applying Hurst to Florida law)
Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.) (Florida Supreme Court decision addressing Hurst retroactivity framework)
Dailey v. State, 594 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1991) (direct appeal identifying invalid aggravators and remanding for resentencing)
Dailey v. State, 659 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1995) (affirming death sentence after judge-alone resentencing)
Asay v. State, 210 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016) (discussion of Hurst implications and retroactivity issues)
Davis v. State, 207 So. 3d 142 (Fla. 2016) (addressing Hurst-related sentencing concerns)