Jimenez v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Petitioner’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 seeking relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and the Supreme Court’s decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016).

Petitioner was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Petitioner’s death sentence became final in 1998. The Supreme Court held that Hurst does not apply retroactively to Petitioner’s sentence of death, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying relief.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-2272 ____________ JOSE ANTONIO JIMENEZ, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [June 28, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Jose Antonio Jimenez’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Jimenez’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Jimenez’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). Jimenez responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Jimenez’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Jimenez is not entitled to relief. Jimenez was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Jimenez v. State, 703 So. 2d 437, 438 (Fla. 1997). His sentence of death became final in 1998. Jimenez v. Florida, 523 U.S. 1123 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Jimenez’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Jimenez’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Jimenez, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. CANADY, J., concurs 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.), 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. Id. at 220-23 (Pariente, J., dissenting). Of course, if Hurst1 applied to Jimenez’s case, he would not be entitled to relief based on the jury’s unanimous 1. Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). -2- recommendation for death, coupled with the absence of any stricken aggravating factors. Jimenez v. State, 703 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1997); See Davis v. State, 207 So. 3d 142, 174-75 (Fla. 2016). An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Richard L. Hersch, Judge - Case No. 131992CF0341560001XX Martin J. McClain of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Wilton Manors, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Donna M. Perry, 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.