RICHARD BARRY RANDOLPH v. STATE OF FLORIDA
No. SC20-287
Supreme Court of Florida
February 4, 2021
Richard Barry Randolph appeals a circuit court ordеr denying his second successive postconviction motion filеd pursuant to
BACKGROUND
Randolph was convicted of first-degree murder аnd sentenced to death in 1990, and this Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. Randolph v. State, 562 So. 2d 331, 332-34 (Fla. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 992 (1990). In 2003, Randolph filed a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence, and we affirmed the denial of that motion. Randolph v. State, 853 So. 2d 1051, 1069 (Fla. 2003). We
In 2010, Randоlph filed another postconviction motion, which the trial court denied for being untimely, successive, procedurally barred, and failing to present any new basis for relief that applied retroactively. In 2017, Randolph filed a second successive postconviction motion, raising four claims—all based on thе retroactivity of Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016), and chapter 2017-1, Laws of Florida.1 Randolph amended his motion to add a fifth claim, asserting that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. He now appeals the denial of his most recent postconviction claims.
ANALYSIS
Randolph‘s primary argument on appeal is that this Court‘s decision in Hurst v. State established a new criminal offense—capital first-degree murder—and that the jury sentencing determinations desсribed in Hurst are “elements” of that new offense. From that assertion, Randolph insists that Hurst created a substantive rule of law that dates back to Florida‘s original capital sentencing statute, thereby requiring Randolph‘s death sentence to be vacated on the ground that certain elements of his crime were nevеr found by a jury.
We rejected a similar argument in Foster v. State, 258 So. 3d 1248, 1251 (Fla. 2018). As we explained in
Moreover, “[w]e have consistently applied our decision in Asay [v. State, 210 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016)], denying the retroactive application of Hurst v. Florida as interpreted in Hurst v. State to defendants whоse death sentences were final when the Supreme Court decided Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).” Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216, 217 (Fla. 2017). Randolph echoes other pre-Ring defendants who have advanced myriad legal theоries that, in the end, turn on pleas for a retroactive application of Hurst. But this Court has rejected such arguments, howevеr styled. See, e.g., Lambrix v. State, 227 So. 3d 112, 113 (Fla. 2017) (rejecting arguments based on “the Eighth Amendment,” “denial of due process and equal protection,” and “a substаntive right based on the legislative passage of chapter 2017-1, Laws of Florida“). Randolph‘s argument that his death sentence was insufficiently reliable to satisfy the Eighth Amendment is similarly unavailing.
For these reasons, we affirm the trial court‘s denial of postconviction relief.
It is so ordered.
POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. CANADY, C.J., concurs in result.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Putnam County, Howard Ogle McGillin, Jr., Judge - Case Nо. 541988CF001357CFAXMX
Neal Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Marta Jaszczolt, Staff Attorney, and Rachel L. Day, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
for Appellant
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Doris Meacham, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Appellee
- 4 -