Willacy v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Chadwick Willacy’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Willacy was not entitled to relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and this court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016). Willacy was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Willacy’s sentence of death became final in 1997. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Willacy’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Willacy’s motion.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-1605 ____________ CHADWICK WILLACY, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 23, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Chadwick Willacy’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Willacy’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Willacy’s 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). This Court stayed Willacy’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Willacy responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Willacy’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Willacy is not entitled to relief. Willacy was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Willacy v. State, 696 So. 2d 693, 694 (Fla. 1997). Willacy’s sentence of death became final in 1997. Willacy v. Florida, 522 U.S. 970 (1997). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Willacy’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Willacy’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Willacy, 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., concur in result. PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock. -2- An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Brevard County, William David Dugan, Judge - Case No. 051990CF016062AXXXXX Linda McDermott of McClain and McDermott, Wilton Manners, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lisa Maria Lerner, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Appellee -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.