Puiatti v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Carl Puiatti’s motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Puiatti 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). Puiatti was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Puiatti’s sentence of death became final in 1988. The Supreme Court held that Hurst did not apply retroactively to Puiatti’s sentence of death and thus affirmed the denial of Puiatti’s motion.

Download PDF

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC17-552 ____________ CARL PUIATTI, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 23, 2018] PER CURIAM. We have for review Carl Puiatti’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Puiatti’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Puiatti’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 Puiatti’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, Puiatti responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Puiatti’s response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Puiatti is not entitled to relief. Puiatti was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of eleven to one. Puiatti v. State, 495 So. 2d 128, 130 (Fla. 1986). Puiatti’s sentence of death became final in 1988. Puiatti v. Florida, 488 U.S. 871 (1988). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Puiatti’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Puiatti’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Puiatti, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. QUINCE, J., recused. 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. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Pasco County, -2- Pat Edward Siracusa, Jr., Judge - Case No. 511983CF001383CFBXWS Ardith Michelle Bronson, DLA Piper, LLP, Miami, Florida, and Adamn B. Banks, Miranda S. Schiller, and Steven A. Reiss, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, New York, New York, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Scott A. Browne, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 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.