Does the Florida Supreme Court's partial retroactivity approach providing for relief pursuant to Hurst v. Florida and Hurst v. State to death-sentenced prisoners whose sentences became final after Ring v. Arizona but excluding from relief those whose death sentences became final during the time period between Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED L 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 from relief those whose 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)? i