Omar Blanco v. State of Florida, 249 So. 3d 536

Omar Blanco was convicted in 1982 of first-degree murder and armed burglary and sentenced to death; convictions and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
Federal habeas court vacated Blanco’s original death sentence for ineffective assistance of penalty-phase counsel; following resentencing in 1994, a jury recommended death 10–2 and Blanco was resentenced to death, which this Court affirmed.
Blanco filed multiple postconviction motions; his fifth motion (filed May 2015) raised an intellectual-disability claim under Atkins and Hall and later an amended claim invoking Hurst.
The circuit court summarily denied the intellectual-disability claim as time-barred under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203 (per this Court’s Rodriguez reasoning) and denied the Hurst claim based on this Court’s precedent applying Asay and Asay-related retroactivity rulings.
This Court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the summary denials, holding Blanco’s Atkins/Hall claim foreclosed by Rodriguez and his Hurst claim foreclosed by Hitchcock/Asay jurisprudence; Justice Pariente concurred in result but would have applied Hurst retroactively.

Issue	Blanco's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Blanco may raise an Atkins-based intellectual-disability claim after the Hall decision	Hall provides a new rule allowing consideration of Atkins claims; Blanco sought to raise intellectual disability now	Claim is untimely under rule 3.203 and foreclosed by this Court’s Rodriguez application of the rule	Denied: Claim time-barred/foreclosed by Rodriguez reasoning
Whether Blanco’s Hurst-based challenge entitles him to relief despite the nonunanimous (10–2) penalty recommendation	Hurst requires jury findings for death-eligibility and should apply to Blanco’s sentence, warranting a new penalty phase	Hurst-based relief is foreclosed by this Court’s retroactivity holdings (Asay/Asay V and Hitchcock), which fix Ring as cutoff for Hurst claims	Denied: Claim foreclosed by Hitchcock and Asay retroactivity decisions

Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014) (clarified application of Atkins intellectual-disability standards)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (established that execution of intellectually disabled persons is unconstitutional)
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (addressed jury role in capital sentencing under Ring principles)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (held that a jury must find any fact that increases the maximum penalty)
Asay v. State, 210 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016) (Florida decision limiting retroactive application of Hurst)
Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017) (applied Asay to foreclose Hurst-based claims post-Ring)