Quince v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Quince v. State

    241 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 2018)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that "specific factual findings as to whether [the defendant] had established that he meets either the second or third prongs of the intellectual disability standard ... were unnecessary ... because [where the defendant] failed to meet the significantly subaverage intellectual functioning prong (even when SEM is taken into account), he could not have met his burden to demonstrate that he is intellectually disabled"

    The denial of relief was affirmed on appeal. Quince v. State , No. SC11-2401, 2012 WL 6197458, at *1–2 (Fla. Dec. 10, 2012) (116 So.3d 1262 (table) ), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2695, 189 L.Ed.2d 743 (2014). Section 921.137 requires a defendant to establish his or her intellectual disability by demonstrating the following three factors: (1) significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning; (2) concurrent deficits in adaptive behavior; and (3) manifestation of the condition before age eighteen.

  2. Quince v. State

    No. SC17-127 (Fla. Jan. 18, 2018)

    The denial of relief was affirmed on appeal. Quince v. State, No. SC11-2401, 2012 WL 6197458, at *1-2 (Fla. Dec. 10, 2012) (116 So. 3d 1262 (table)). Section 921.137 requires a defendant to establish his or her intellectual disability by demonstrating the following three factors: (1) significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning; (2) concurrent deficits in adaptive behavior; and (3) manifestation of the condition before age eighteen.

  3. Quince v. State

    233 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 2018)

    We also affirmed the denial of a successive motion for postconviction relief, in which Quince sought to vacate his death sentence on the ground that he is ineligible for the death penalty due to intellectual disability. Quince v. State, No. SC11-2401, 2012 WL 6197458, at *1–2 (Fla. Dec. 10, 2012) (116 So.3d 1262 (table) ). On January 9, 2017, Quince filed another successive motion for postconviction relief in light of Hurst v. Florida, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), which is the subject of this appeal.