Randall T. Deviney v. State of Florida, 213 So. 3d 794

On August 5, 2008, Delores Futrell was found murdered in her Jacksonville home; autopsy showed a deep, straight incised wound severing the larynx and additional blunt- and sharp-force injuries; evidence indicated she was killed in the backyard and dragged inside.
Deviney, who had a longstanding relationship with Futrell, was linked by DNA recovered from Futrell’s right fingernail clippings; he later confessed during recorded calls and also testified at trial, admitting he killed Futrell and staged the scene.
At trial the jury convicted Deviney of first-degree murder and returned an eight-to-four recommendation for death; the trial court imposed a death sentence, finding three aggravators and multiple mitigators.
This Court previously reversed Deviney’s conviction and death sentence based on Miranda violations and ordered a retrial; the present appeal follows his reconviction and renewed death sentence recommendation.
Deviney challenged the death sentence under Hurst v. Florida and Ring, arguing the jury did not make the unanimous findings required to impose death; the Court addressed whether the nonunanimous recommendation rendered the sentence unconstitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Deviney)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Florida’s capital sentencing violated the Sixth Amendment / Hurst because the jury did not unanimously find the facts necessary for death	Jury recommendation 8–4 insufficient; Hurst requires unanimous jury findings of the facts necessary to impose death	The jury recommendation and felony-murder conviction were sufficient to support the death sentence; any error was harmless	Court held Hurst error occurred; death sentence vacated and remanded for new penalty phase (conviction affirmed)
Whether the Hurst error is subject to harmless-error review and, if so, whether the error was harmless	Error may be harmless only if beyond a reasonable doubt it did not contribute to the sentence; given nonunanimous recommendation and substantial mitigation, harmlessness not established	Asserted that aggravation and felony-murder conviction render any Hurst error harmless	Court applied harmless-error framework and found it was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; remanded for new penalty phase
Guilt-phase sufficiency: Whether trial court erred denying judgment of acquittal on attempted sexual battery	(challenged denial) argued insufficient evidence	State argued evidence supported the attempted sexual battery theory and first-degree murder theory	Court affirmed denial of judgment of acquittal; no error in guilt phase

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (established Miranda protections for custodial interrogation)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (aligned Sixth Amendment jury-trial protections with capital-finder-of-fact requirements)
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (Supreme Court decision invalidating Florida’s judge-found fact sentencing scheme in capital cases)
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida Supreme Court applying Hurst and requiring jury unanimity for critical findings in capital sentencing)
Deviney v. State, 112 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 2013) (prior reversal of Deviney’s conviction and sentence for Miranda violations)
Johnson v. State, 205 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 2016) (harmless-error framework applied to Hurst sentencing errors)
Zack v. State, 753 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2000) (harmless-error standards in sentencing context)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (new rules apply on direct review)