FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Raag
Singhal, Judge - Case No. 061982CF000453A88810
Still, III, Coral Springs, Florida, for Appellant
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Leslie
T. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach,
Florida, for Appellee
Blanco, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the
circuit court's orders summarily denying his fifth motion
for postconviction relief, which was filed under Florida
Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and 3.203. We have
jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.
1982, a jury convicted Blanco of first-degree murder and
armed burglary. We affirmed Blanco's convictions and
sentence of death on direct appeal. Blanco v. State,
452 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1984). We also upheld the denial of his
initial motion for postconviction relief and denied his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Blanco v.
Wainwright, 507 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 1987). A federal court
later vacated the death sentence based on ineffective
assistance of penalty phase counsel. Blanco v.
Dugger, 691 F.Supp. 308 (S.D. Fla. 1988), aff'd
sub nom. Blanco v. Singletary, 943 F.2d 1477 (11th Cir.
1991). In 1994, following a new penalty phase on
resentencing, the jury recommended a death penalty by a vote
of ten to two. We affirmed Blanco's resentence of death.
Blanco v. State, 706 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1997). We also
upheld the denial of his fourth postconviction motion.
Blanco v. State, 963 So.2d 173 (Fla. 2007).
2015, Blanco filed his current fifth postconviction motion
under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and 3.203.
Within his motion, Blanco sought relief based on Hall v.
Florida, 134 S.Ct. 1986 (2014), and Atkins v.
Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). Blanco subsequently filed
an amended postconviction motion in which he sought
additional relief based on Hurst v. Florida, 136
S.Ct. 616 (2016). In January 2017, the circuit court issued
an order summarily denying Blanco's intellectual
disability claim as time-barred in light of this Court's
decision in Rodriguez v. State, No. SC15-1278, 2016
WL 4194776 (Fla. Aug. 9, 2016) (unpublished order). This
appeal followed. While Blanco's postconviction case was
pending in this Court, the Court directed Blanco to show
cause why the circuit court's May 2017 order-entered by
the circuit court on relinquishment-should not be affirmed in
light of this Court's decision in Hitchcock v.
State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138
S.Ct. 513 (2017). This Court also directed further briefing
on the intellectual-disability-related issue.
conclude that Blanco's intellectual disability claim is
foreclosed by the reasoning of this Court's decision in
Rodriguez. In Rodriguez, this Court applied
the time-bar contained within rule 3.203 to a defendant who
sought to raise an intellectual disability claim under
Atkins for the first time in light of Hall.
We also conclude that Blanco's Hurst claim is
foreclosed by this Court's decision in
Hitchcock. In Hitchcock, this Court applied
Asay to mean that Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S.
584 (2002), is the cutoff for any and all
Hurst-related claims. Accordingly, we affirm the
circuit court's orders denying Blanco's fifth motion
for postconviction relief.
rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken.
QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ, concur
CANADY, CJ, concurs in result
PARIENTE, J, concurring in ...