Duane Eugene Owen v. State of Florida

PER CURIAM. *395 We have for review Duane Eugene Owen's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Owen's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Owen's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). Owen responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), should not be dispositive in this case. After reviewing Owen's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Owen is not entitled to relief. Owen was sentenced to death following a jury's recommendation for death by a vote of ten to two. Owen v. State , 596 So.2d 985 , 987 (Fla. 1992). His sentence of death became final in 1992. Owen v. Florida , 506 U.S. 921 , 113 S.Ct. 338 , 121 L.Ed.2d 255 (1992). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Owen's sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217 . Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Owen's motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Owen, 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 , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock .