Thomas Bevel, Appellant v. State of Florida, Appellee; Thomas Beve — Canady, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

Justice Canady, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agrees that Bevel’s habeas petition should be denied but disagrees with the majority’s reversal of the post‑conviction court’s denial and remand for a new penalty phase. He argues that the Hurst v. Florida requirements were satisfied, that Hurst should not apply retroactively, and that Bevel failed to meet the Strickland prongs on each ineffective‑assistance claim.