Terance Valentine v. State of Florida

Jun 4, 2020
SC18-1102
Versions:296 So.3d 375

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying a successive motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.1 We affirm the denial of relief.

First, Valentine‘s claim relating to the legal name of one of his victims, to whom he had been married, is untimely and procedurally barred. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851(d)(1) (“Any motion to vacate judgment of conviction and sentence of death shall be filed by the defendant within 1 year after the judgment and sentence become final.”); Hendrix v. State, 136 So. 3d 1122, 1125 (Fla. 2014) (“Claims raised and rejected in prior postconviction proceedings are procedurally barred from being litigated in a successive motion.”). This information was known to Valentine and raised during his initial postconviction proceedings. See Valentine v. State, 98 So. 3d 44, 50 n.8, 51 (Fla. 2012).

Second, the trial court properly denied Valentine Hurst2 relief because he waived his right to a penalty phase jury. See Twilegar v. State, 228 So. 3d 550, 551 (Fla. 2017) (“[T]he Hurst decisions do not apply to defendants like Twilegar who waived a penalty phase jury.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Valentine‘s successive motion for postconviction relief.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.

COURIEL, J., did not participate.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Michelle Sisco, Judge - Case No. 291988CF012996000AHC

Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer and Maria DeLiberato of Parmer DeLiberato. P.A., Tampa, Florida, for Appellant

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Rick A. Buchwalter, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee

Notes

1
We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.