Summary
In Rodriguez, this Court applied the time-bar contained within [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.203 to a defendant who sought to raise an intellectual disability claim under Atkins for the first time in light of Hall."); Rodriguez, 250 So. 3d at 616 ("Rodriguez, who had never before raised an intellectual disability claim, asserted that there was 'good cause' pursuant to [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.203(f) for his failure to assert a previous claim of intellectual disability [because] only after the United States Supreme Court decided [Hall] did he have the basis for asserting an intellectual disability claim.
Summary of this case from Bowles v. StateOpinion
No. SC15–1278.
08-09-2016
Manuel Antonio RODRIGUEZ, Appellant v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
This cause is before this Court on Rodriguez's appeal of the summary denial of his "Motion for Determination of Intellectual Disability and Successive Motion to Vacate Death Sentences with Special Request for Leave to Amend" pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.851 and 3.203. Rodriguez's motion was filed on May 22, 2015. Rodriguez, who had never before raised an intellectual disability claim, asserted that there was "good cause" pursuant to Rule 3.203(f) for his failure to assert a previous claim of intellectual disability and only after the United States Supreme Court decided Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014), did he have the basis for asserting an intellectual disability claim. The trial court rejected the motion as time barred, concluding there was no reason that Rodriguez could not have previously raised a claim of intellectual disability based on Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). The trial court further concluded that Rodriguez could not have relied on Cherry v. State, 959 So.2d 702 (Fla. 2007), which established the bright-line cut-off of 70 for IQ scores disapproved of in Hall, because he never raised an intellectual disability claim after Atkins as required by Rule 3.203.
We have considered the issues raised, and affirm the trial court's denial of Rodriguez's motion as time-barred for the reasons stated by the trial court.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
CANADY, J., concurs in result.
QUINCE, J., dissents.