Richard Eugene Hamilton v. State of Florida, 236 So. 3d 276

Background

Richard Eugene Hamilton was convicted in 1994 of first‑degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to death; convictions and sentence became final in 1998 after the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Hamilton filed a successive Rule 3.851 postconviction motion (Aug. 24, 2016) asserting institutional failures and that his death sentence was unconstitutional under Hurst v. Florida.
He also filed Rule 3.852 demands for additional public records about prior postconviction counsel and Judge E. Vernon Douglas; the trial court denied those requests as of questionable relevance.
The circuit court summarily denied the successive postconviction motion as untimely under the one‑year rule of Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(1) and found none of the rule’s exceptions applied.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the successive motion and the denial of additional public records; a single Justice dissented arguing Hurst should apply retroactively and that Hamilton’s nonunanimous jury recommendation (10–2) requires a new penalty phase.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of successive 3.851 motion	Hamilton: Hurst announced a new constitutional rule and his Hurst claim was timely when filed in 2016	State: Conviction became final in 1998; one‑year window expired in 1999 and Hurst has not been held retroactive to pre‑Ring final judgments	Motion untimely; no exception in rule 3.851(d)(2) applies, so court properly denied it
Retroactivity of Hurst	Hamilton (and dissent): Hurst announced a fundamental right and should apply retroactively to ensure reliability where jury recommendation was nonunanimous	State: Hurst does not apply retroactively to defendants whose judgments were final before Ring (2002)	Majority: Hurst not held retroactive to Hamilton’s position; dissent would have applied Hurst retroactively
Denial of public‑records requests under rule 3.852	Hamilton: Records about prior counsel and judge tenure are relevant to postconviction claims	State: Requests are of questionable relevance, overly broad, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence	Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion—Hamilton failed to show records relate to a colorable claim
Caldwell / reliability challenge to death‑penalty procedures	Hamilton (dissent): Pre‑Hurst advisory jury instructions and nonunanimous recommendation undermine reliability and violate Caldwell/Eighth Amendment	State: No retroactive relief under existing precedent; procedural bars apply	Majority did not reach merits beyond timeliness; dissent would vacate death sentence and grant new penalty phase

Key Cases Cited

Hamilton v. State, 703 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1997) (direct appeal affirming convictions and death sentence)
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (Supreme Court decision holding Florida’s sentencing scheme unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment)
Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (Florida Supreme Court decision applying Hurst to Florida procedure)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (holding that a jury must find the facts necessary to impose the death penalty)
Asay v. State, 210 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2016) (holding Hurst does not apply retroactively to defendants whose judgments were final before Ring)
Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.) (reiterating limits on Hurst’s retroactivity)
Moore v. State, 820 So.2d 199 (Fla. 2002) (permitting denial of overly broad or irrelevant public‑records requests)
Chavez v. State, 132 So.3d 826 (Fla. 2014) (defendant bears burden to show records relate to a colorable postconviction claim)
Mann v. State, 112 So.3d 1158 (Fla. 2013) (public‑records burden and relevance standards)
Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985) (Eighth Amendment bars minimizing jury’s sense of responsibility for capital sentencing)
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (death penalty must be imposed reliably and not arbitrarily)
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (capital punishment standards under Eighth Amendment)