William Harold Kelley v. Florida

In Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (“Hurst I”), this Court held that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment because a jury did not make the findings necessary for a death sentence. In Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (“Hurst II”), the Florida Supreme Court further held that under the Eighth Amendment the jury’s findings must be unanimous. Although the Florida Supreme Court held that the Hurst decisions applied retroactively, it created over sharp dissents a novel and unprecedented rule of partial retroactivity, limiting their application only to inmates whose death sentences became final after Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). Ring, however, addressed Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme and was grounded solely on the Sixth Amendment, not the Eighth Amendment. The Question Presented is: Whether the Florida Supreme Court’s novel and unprecedented decision to allow only partial retroactivity violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it arbitrarily uses as the cutoff point for retroactivity an earlier decision invalidating Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme under the Sixth Amendment, and denies relief to the inmates who deserve it the most. (i)