Whether the Florida Supreme Court's partial retroactivity rule as to violations pursuant to Hurst v. Florida violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

QUESTIONS PRESENTED--CAPITAL CASE 1. Whether the Florida Supreme Court’s partial retroactivity rule as to violations pursuant to Hurst v. Florida, which is based on an arbitrary cutoff date, violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? 2. Whether the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that Hurst v. Florida claims are retroactive post-Ring, but not postApprendi, violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? 3. Whether the evolving standards of decency require jury unanimity before the imposition of a death sentence? 4. Whether jury unanimity in a death penalty case, which the Florida Supreme Court recognizes as being compelled by the Eighth Amendment due to its enhanced reliability, can be subjected to an arbitrary cutoff date for the purpose of determining retroactivity? 5. Whether defendants sentenced to death prior to August 24, 2002, pursuant to Florida Statute §$921.141, were convicted of capital murder subjecting them to the death penalty, or whether the fact that the jury did not unanimously find all of the elements required to convict of capital murder mandates that such defendants were only convicted of murder and are therefore ineligible for the death penalty? 6. Whether the elements of capital first degree murder i must be found unanimously by a jury in order to render a valid death sentence? ii