John Sexton, Appellant v. State of Florida, Appellee — Canady, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

Summary

Justice Canady concurred in affirming Sexton's conviction but dissented from vacating his death sentence. He reasoned that any Hurst error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence established that a rational jury would have found each of the three aggravating circumstances. Justice Pariente, concurring, agreed that the Hurst error was not harmless because the record did not establish what the jury unanimously found regarding aggravation and mitigation, while Justice Lawson separately adopted the reasoning identified in another special concurrence.