Richard Barry Randolph v. State of Florida, SC20-287

Background

Randolph was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1990; this Court affirmed his conviction and sentence.
He filed multiple postconviction motions (2003, 2010, 2017); earlier collateral challenges and a Ring-based petition were denied.
In 2017 Randolph filed a second successive Rule 3.851 motion asserting entitlement to relief based on Hurst decisions and chapter 2017-1; he later added an Eighth Amendment claim.
The trial court denied the motion as successive/untimely/procedurally barred and not presenting a retroactive basis for relief.
On appeal Randolph argued Hurst v. State created a new substantive offense ("capital first-degree murder") whose elements must be found by a jury, requiring vacatur of his death sentence.
The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed, rejecting Randolph’s retroactivity and Eighth Amendment arguments and declining to revisit prior Hurst-retroactivity precedent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hurst created a new substantive offense ("capital first‑degree murder") whose elements must be found by a jury	Hurst created new elements for capital murder; Randolph’s sentence is invalid because those elements were not jury-found	Hurst did not create a new crime; first‑degree murder remains the capital offense and Hurst did not change the elements of the crime	Rejected; no independent crime created and Hurst did not alter the elements of first‑degree murder
Whether Hurst (and related Florida decisions/legislation) applies retroactively to defendants whose death sentences were final pre‑Ring	Hurst announces a substantive rule that reaches back to Florida’s original capital statute, so it applies retroactively	Florida precedents deny retroactive application of Hurst to those whose sentences were final at the time of Ring	Rejected; this Court’s retroactivity precedents (Asay, Hitchcock, Foster, Lambrix) bar retroactive Hurst relief for pre‑Ring final cases
Eighth Amendment challenge asserting death sentence unreliability	Randolph contends his sentence is insufficiently reliable under the Eighth Amendment without jury Hurst findings	State contends Eighth Amendment claim is untimely/meritless given established Hurst/retroactivity law	Rejected; claim fails under existing Hurst/retroactivity jurisprudence
Argument criticizing State v. Poole and seeking reconsideration of Hurst-related precedent	Randolph urges partial receding from Hurst to obtain relief	State relies on pre‑Poole Florida law denying retroactive Hurst relief; Court need not and declines to revisit under pre‑Poole law	Not reached substantively; Randolph’s claims fail even under pre‑Poole law, so no change warranted

Key Cases Cited

Randolph v. State, 562 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1990) (affirming conviction and death sentence)
Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (describing jury findings required for imposition of death penalty in Florida)
Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016) (U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing Florida’s capital sentencing scheme)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (holding aggravating factors that expose defendant to death must be found by a jury)
Foster v. State, 258 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 2018) (rejecting argument that Hurst created a new substantive offense)
Asay v. State, 210 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016) (addressing retroactivity of Hurst)
Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017) (applying Asay to deny retroactive Hurst relief for pre‑Ring final defendants)
Lambrix v. State, 227 So. 3d 112 (Fla. 2017) (rejecting various retroactivity and constitutional theories seeking Hurst relief)
State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020) (partially receded from Hurst; discussed but not dispositive here)