Whether the Florida Supreme Court's partial retroactivity approach for Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Supremacy Clause

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Does the Florida Supreme Court’s partial retroactivity approach providing for relief pursuant to Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) and Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) to death sentenced prisoners whose sentences became final after Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) but excluding relief for those who death sentences became final during the time period between Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Ring, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? 2. Does the Florida Supreme Court’s formula for partial retroactivity of the Hurst opinions violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution pursuant to Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016)? ii