Whether the Florida Supreme Court's per se harmless-error rule for Hurst errors contravenes the Eighth Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED CAPITAL CASE 1. Whether the Florida Supreme Court’s per se harmless-error rule, which deems Hurst errors harmless in every case in which the defendant’s preHurst advisory jury unanimously recommended death, contravenes the FEighth Amendment under Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) and Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985). 2. Whether the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to allow only limited retroactivity of its Eighth Amendment holding in Hurst v. State violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it arbitrarily allows a death sentence to stand, resulting in the arbitrary and capricious execution of capital defendant and the disparate treatment of equally culpable individuals. 3. Whether the limited retroactivity formula employed for Hurst errors in Florida violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016). i