FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Monroe County, Luis
M. Garcia, Judge - Case No. 442000CF000573000AKW
Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Scott Gavin,
Staff Attorney, and Paul Kalil, Assistant Capital Collateral
Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Scott
A. Browne, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida,
A. Tanzi appeals an order denying a motion to vacate
judgments of conviction, including one of first-degree
murder, and a sentence of death under Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.851.
underlying facts of this case were described in this
Court's opinion on direct appeal. Tanzi v.
State, 964 So.2d 106, 110-12 (Fla. 2007). Tanzi pled
guilty to the first-degree murder of Janet Acosta.
Id. at 111. He carjacked, kidnapped, beat, sexually
battered, robbed, and strangled Ms. Acosta. Id. at
110-11. Following a unanimous jury recommendation for death,
the trial court sentenced Tanzi to death for Ms. Acosta's
murder. Id. at 111. The trial court found seven
aggravating factors and ten mitigating
circumstances. We affirmed Tanzi's convictions and
sentence of death. Id. at 121. We also affirmed the
denial of Tanzi's initial postconviction motion and
denied relief on his habeas petition. Tanzi v.
State, 94 So.3d 482, 497 (Fla. 2012).
successive postconviction motion, Tanzi argues that he is
entitled to relief pursuant to Hurst v. Florida, 136
S.Ct. 616 (2016), and Hurst v. State
(Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert.
denied, 137 S.Ct. 2161 (2017). We agree with Tanzi that
Hurst is applicable in his case. See Mosley v.
State, 209 So.3d 1248 (Fla. 2016). However, because we
find that the Hurst error in this case is harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm the denial of
postconviction relief. As we stated in Davis v.
State, 207 So.3d 142, 175 (Fla. 2016), cert.
denied, 137 S.Ct. 2218 (2017):
[T]he jury unanimously found all of the necessary facts for
the imposition of death sentences by virtue of its unanimous
recommendations. . . . . The unanimous recommendations here
are precisely what we determined in Hurst to be
constitutionally necessary to impose a sentence of death.
reject Tanzi's assertion that the Hurst error
was not harmless because the jury was not given a mercy
instruction. See Knight v. State, 225 So.3d 661, 683
(Fla. 2017), cert. denied, No. 17-7099 (U.S. Mar.
we reject Tanzi's Hurst-induced
Caldwell claim. See Reynolds v. State, No.
SC17-793, slip op. at 26-36 (Fla. Apr. 5, 2018).
the Hurst violation in this case is harmless beyond
a reasonable doubt and, as in Davis, does not
entitle Tanzi to relief. Thus, we affirm the denial of
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, ...