John F. Mosley, Appellant v. State of Florida, Appellee; John F. M — Canady, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

Justice Canady, concurring in part and dissenting in part, argues that Mosley’s death sentence should not have been vacated because the jury’s finding of an aggravator means no Hurst violation and because the new rule should not apply retroactively under Witt and Johnson. He maintains that the majority’s retroactivity analysis misapplies Witt’s three‑part test and ignores the State’s reliance on prior law. The opinion therefore affirms the denial of relief on guilt‑phase claims but rejects the vacatur of the death sentence and the remand for a new penalty phase. Justice Perry’s separate concurrence/dissent concurs with the vacatur but argues the case should be remanded for a life‑sentence under § 775.082(2).