Richard Eugene Hamilton, Appellant v. State of Florida, Appellee. — Pariente, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Pariente dissents, arguing that Hamilton is entitled to a new penalty phase because the non‑unanimous jury recommendation should be invalidated under Hurst, and that Hamilton's post‑conviction motion was timely despite the one‑year limitation. She contends the majority’s reliance on timeliness is legally unsound and that retroactive application of Hurst is required to satisfy the Eighth Amendment.