Legal Opinion

Jermaine Foster v. State of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided December 28, 2018No. SC17-2198PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying a successive motion to vacate two sentences of death under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Foster contends that the postconviction court erred in summarily denying the three claims raised in his motion. The first claim is one of intellectual disability, raised pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hall v. Florida , 572 U.S. 701, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014), and the second and third claims seek relief pursuant to Hurst v. Florida , ---…

Also in this document: Concurrence · Pariente; Concurrence · Pariente.

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  2. Atkins v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. Penry v. LynaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Hurst v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  5. Timothy Lee Hurst v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 2016

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Jermaine Foster v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 2024
  2. Jermaine Foster v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 2026
  3. Jermaine Foster v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API