# Larry Darnell Perry v. State of Florida

> Supreme Court of Florida · October 14, 2016 · 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 449

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9837539

## Case

- **Full name:** Larry Darnell PERRY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** October 14, 2016
- **Citations:** 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 449; 210 So. 3d 630; 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2304
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Canady
- **Judges:** Labarga, Pariente, Lewis, Quince, Perry, Canady, Polston
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9837539

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying Hurst , which held that a death sentence could not be legally imposed absent a unanimous death recommendation by the penalty phase jury
- concluding that the 2016 amendment to section 782.04(1) was “not required by . . . Hurst v. Florida”
- applying Hurst, which held that a death sentence could not be legally imposed absent a unanimous death recommendation by the penalty phase jury

## Opinion text

CANADY, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority in approving the Fifth District’s rejection of Perry’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, “leave[s] Florida without a death penalty.” I therefore concur with the majority in answering the first certified question in the negative.
But I dissent from the negative answer to the second certified question. Although I agree with the majority that the Fifth District correctly rejected Perry’s argument that application of Florida’s new death penalty statute to his case would be an ex post facto violation, I strongly disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the new statute is unconstitutional under Hurst v. Florida. As I explained in my dissent in Hurst, 202 So.3d at 77 (Canady, J., dissenting), the Supreme Court “repeatedly] identified]” “Florida’s failure to require a jury finding of an aggravator as the flaw that renders Florida’s death penalty law unconstitutional.” See, e.g., Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. at 624 (“Florida’s sentencing scheme, which required the judge alone to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance, is therefore unconstitutional.”). The new statute has remedied that flaw. See § 921.141(2)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2016).
The Legislature’s work in enacting the new statute reflects careful attention to the holding of Hurst v. Florida, which does not require jury sentencing. In rejecting the new statute, the majority has “fundamentally misapprehend[ed] and misuse[d] Hurst v. Florida,” Hurst, 202 So.3d at 77 (Canady, J., dissenting).
POLSTON, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9837539. Public record. Not legal advice.