Larry Darnell Perry v. State of Florida, 210 So. 3d 630

In 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hurst v. Florida, holding Florida’s capital scheme unconstitutional because the judge, not a jury, made the critical findings required to impose death.
Florida enacted chapter 2016-13 (the Act) on March 7, 2016 to respond to Hurst by shifting factfinding to the jury, adding notice requirements, and altering penalty-phase procedures.
The Act requires unanimous jury findings on each aggravating factor but permits a death recommendation when at least 10 of 12 jurors vote for death; it also removes the court’s ability to override a jury life recommendation.
Two defendants (Perry and Woodward) challenged application of the Act to prosecutions for crimes committed before the Act’s effective date; the Fifth DCA upheld applying the Act and certified two questions to the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Supreme Court in Hurst v. State had held the death penalty itself remained constitutional but that jury unanimity was required for the critical findings and recommendation to impose death.
This Court held most provisions of the Act could be read to comply with Hurst, but the 10-of-12 juror recommendation provision conflicts with Hurst’s unanimity requirement and therefore cannot be applied to pending prosecutions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Perry)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Did Hurst v. Florida declare Florida’s death penalty unconstitutional?	Hurst implicitly eliminated Florida’s death penalty.	Hurst invalidated only the sentencing process, not the death penalty itself.	No — Hurst struck the process, not the death penalty.
Does chapter 2016-13 apply to prosecutions for crimes committed before its effective date?	Applying the Act to pending cases violates ex post facto and Hurst.	The Act is procedural, remedies Hurst, and can apply to pending cases.	Mostly yes, except where the Act conflicts with Hurst’s unanimity rule (the 10‑juror recommendation is unconstitutional and cannot be applied).
Are jury findings required to be unanimous under the Act as construed?	Jury factual findings and recommendation must be unanimous.	Legislature intended unanimity for factfinding but allowed a 10‑juror recommendation.	Under Hurst, jury must unanimously find aggravators, sufficiency, outweighing, and unanimously recommend death.
Does the Act’s 10-of-12 recommendation provision violate Hurst/Florida Constitution?	Violates state right to jury trial and Hurst’s unanimity requirement.	Provision is constitutional compromise and permissible.	Unconstitutional — final recommendation for death must be unanimous; the 10‑juror rule is invalid.

Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (Struck Florida’s sentencing scheme for assigning factfinding to judge rather than jury)
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida Supreme Court interpreting Hurst to require unanimous jury findings and recommendation before death may be imposed)
Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (1977) (procedural changes to sentencing schemes can be applied to pending prosecutions where not ex post facto)
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (led to effective invalidation of existing death-penalty schemes)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (ground for juvenile sentencing reforms and retroactivity issues cited by analogy)
Steele v. State, 921 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2005) (State must prove at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt)