No. 18-8399
Randall Scott Jones v. Florida
IFP
Tags: capital-punishment constitutional-law death-penalty eighth-amendment eighth-amendment-cruel-and-unusual-punishment equal-protection fourteenth-amendment fourteenth-amendment-due-process hurst-v-florida retroactivity ring-v-arizona supremacy-clause supreme-court-precedent
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-05-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the Florida Supreme Court's partial retroactivity formula for Hurst v. Florida violations violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the Florida Supreme Court’s partial retroactivity formula, designed to limit the class of condemned prisoners obtaining a life-or-death jury determination pursuant to Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? 2. Does the Florida Supreme Court’s partial retroactivity formula employed for Hurst violations in Florida violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016)? i
Docket Entries
2019-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
2019-04-10
Brief of respondent State of Florida in opposition filed.
2019-03-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 11, 2019)
Attorneys
Randall Scott Jones
State of Florida
Carolyn M. Snurkowski — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Carolyn M. Snurkowski — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent