Gary Ray Bowles v. State of Florida
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Gary Ray Bowles v. Ron Desantis, Governor (11th Cir. 2019)
- In re: Gary Ray Bowles (11th Cir. 2019)
- Gary Ray Bowles v. State of Florida and Gary Ray Bowles v. Mark S. Inch, etc. (Fla. 2019)
- Gary Ray Bowles v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (11th Cir. 2019)
- Bowles v. Inch (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2019)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Supreme Court of Florida ____________
No. SC17-1754 ____________
GARY RAY BOWLES,
Appellant, vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
[January 29, 2018]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Gary Ray Bowles’ appeal of the circuit court’s order denying Bowles’ motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Bowles’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), we ordered Bowles to show cause why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.
After reviewing Bowles’ response to the order to show cause, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Bowles is not entitled to relief. Bowles was sentenced to death following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death. Bowles v. State, 804 So. 2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 2001). Bowles’s sentence of death became final on June 17, 2002. Bowles v. Florida, 536 U.S. 930 (2002). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Bowles’ sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Bowles’ motion.
The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Bowles, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.
LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.
PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.
I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Bruce R. Anderson, Jr., Judge - Case No. 161994CF012188AXXXMA Francis Jerome Shea, Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer A. Donahue, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.