State of Florida, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Gerald Delane Murray, Appellee/cross-Appellant. Gerald Delane Murray…

Summary

The court affirmed the orders granting Murray a new penalty phase under Hurst while denying his other initial and successive postconviction claims, and it denied his habeas petition. The court held that the challenged newly discovered evidence and ineffective-assistance claims did not satisfy the applicable legal standards, and that the successive claim was conclusively refuted by the record. The court also rejected each asserted ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim because the underlying issues were meritless, procedurally barred, or adequately presented. Justice Pariente, concurring, criticized the disparate Hurst treatment of Murray and his codefendant, while Justice Polston, joined by Chief Justice Canady, would have rejected Hurst relief.