Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Broward County,
Edward Harold Merrigan, Jr., Judge - Case No.
E. Olive of the Law Office of Mark E. Olive, P.A.,
Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellant
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Ilana
Mitzner, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach,
Florida, for Appellee
for review Daniel Lee Doyle's appeal of the circuit
court's order denying Doyle's motion filed pursuant
to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has
jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.
motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct.
616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v.
State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016),
cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 2161 (2017). Doyle responded
to this Court's order to show cause arguing why
Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017),
cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 513 (2017), should not be
dispositive in this case.
reviewing Doyle's response to the order to show cause, as
well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that
Doyle is not entitled to relief. Doyle was sentenced to death
following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of
eight to four, and his sentence of death became final in
1985. Doyle v. State, 460 So.2d 353 (Fla.
1984). Thus, Hurst does not apply
retroactively to Doyle's sentence of death. See
Hitchcock, 226 So.3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the
denial of Doyle's motion.
Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by
Doyle, we caution that any rehearing motion containing
reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J, and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ, concur
PARIENTE, J, concurs in result with an opinion LEWIS and
CANADY, JJ, concurin result.
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.
prior Hitchcock-related cases, I concur in result
because I recognize that this Court's opinion in
Hitchcock is now final. However, I continue to
adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in
Hitchcock that Hurst should apply
retroactively to defendants like Doyle. Hitchcock,
226 So.3d at 220-21 (Pariente, J., dissenting).
Hurst to Doyle's case, in addition to the
jury's nonunanimous recommendation for death of eight to
four, this Court determined on direct appeal that the State
did not prove the avoid arrest aggravating factor beyond a
reasonable doubt and therefore struck it before determining
that the death penalty was proportionate in Doyle's case.
Doyle v. State, 460 So.2d 353, 358 (Fla. 1984);
majority op. at 2; see Middleton v. State, 42
Fla.L.Weekly S637, 2017 WL 2374697, *1-2 (Fla. June 1, 2017)
(Pariente, J., dissenting) (explaining how a stricken
aggravating factor affects the Hurst harmless error
analysis). Further, this case demonstrates other
concerns, specifically the absence of the trial court finding
any mental mitigation. As then-Justice Overton, joined by
then-Justice McDonald, explained on direct appeal dissenting
The record reflects that [Doyle] was 21 years old; that he
had an IQ of between 70 and 80, and was borderline retarded;
that he was suffering from organic brain defects, which
caused dyslexia, and had emotional problems; that he had been
enrolled in handicapped classes; and that his mental
condition was chronic.
Doyle, 460 So.2d at 358 (Overton, J., concurring in
part and dissenting in part). After explaining that
substantial evidence of mental mitigation was presented,
which the trial court should not have rejected, Justice
Overton explained that the trial court applied the wrong
standard "in determining the presence or ...