No. 18-6889
Stephen Todd Booker v. Florida
IFP
Tags: apprendi-v-new-jersey criminal-procedure death-penalty death-penalty-sentencing eighth-amendment equal-protection fourteenth-amendment hurst-retroactivity montgomery-v-louisiana retroactivity
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Punishment Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Punishment Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-01-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the partial retroactivity formula for Hurst v. Florida violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the partial retroactivity formula for Hurst v. Florida, 136 8. Ct. 616 (2016), claims designed by the Florida Supreme Court, as applied to a prisoner whose death sentence between Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments on arbitrariness and equal protection grounds? 2. Does the Constitution require the Florida Supreme Court to apply Hurst retroactively to all prisoners in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016)? i
Docket Entries
2019-01-22
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.
2018-12-20
Brief of respondent State of Florida in opposition filed.
2018-11-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 31, 2018)
Attorneys
State of Florida
Carolyn M. Snurkowski — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Carolyn M. Snurkowski — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Stephen Todd Booker