John D. Freeman v. State of Florida, 300 So.3d 591

John D. Freeman was convicted in 1986 of first‑degree felony murder and burglary with an assault and sentenced to death after a jury recommendation (9–3) and a judge’s sentencing findings.
Freeman’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal; multiple postconviction and habeas proceedings followed, with most claims previously denied.
In 2017 Freeman filed a second successive motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 asserting (1) Hurst‑based relief (that his nonunanimous jury recommendation renders the death sentence unconstitutional) and (2) an Atkins claim of intellectual disability based on a 2017 IQ score of 72.
The trial court initially set an evidentiary hearing on the intellectual‑disability claim, then vacated that order and summarily denied the successive motion, citing this Court’s precedents (including Bowles).
On appeal the Florida Supreme Court affirmed: Hurst relief was unavailable retroactively to defendants whose sentences were final before Ring, and the intellectual‑disability claim was untimely under the governing Rule 3.203 deadline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hurst relief applies retroactively to Freeman (sentence final pre‑Ring)	Freeman: Hurst renders his nonunanimous jury recommendation unconstitutional, entitling him to relief.	State: Hurst is not retroactive to defendants whose death sentences were final before Ring; prior Florida precedent forecloses relief.	Court: Denied—Hurst relief not retroactive to pre‑Ring final sentences; precedent controls.
Whether Freeman’s intellectual‑disability claim (Atkins) is timely	Freeman: 2017 IQ score (72) newly shows intellectual disability and warrants an evidentiary hearing on all three prongs.	State: Claim is successive and untimely under Rule 3.203 (required to be raised within 60 days after Oct. 1, 2004); controlling precedent (Walls receded) bars late claims.	Court: Denied—claim untimely; Freeman failed to meet timeliness requirements, so no evidentiary hearing.

Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating Florida’s judge‑centric death‑penalty sentencing procedure under the Sixth Amendment)
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida Supreme Court applying Hurst to Florida sentencing scheme)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (Sixth Amendment requires jury findings of aggravating factors necessary for capital punishment)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (execution of intellectually disabled persons violates the Eighth Amendment)
Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) (federal rule against strict IQ cutoffs in determining intellectual disability)
Walls v. State, 213 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 2016) (Florida decision addressing Hall’s retroactivity; later receded by this Court)
Bowles v. State, 276 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 2019) (Florida decision relevant to successive postconviction claims, relied on by the trial court)
Salazar v. State, 188 So. 3d 799 (Fla. 2016) (articulating Florida’s three‑prong test for establishing intellectual disability)
Freeman v. State, 563 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1990) (affirming Freeman’s conviction and sentence)