Hojan v. State
Decision Date | 31 January 2017 |
Docket Number | No. SC13–2422,No. SC13–5,SC13–5,SC13–2422 |
Citation | 212 So.3d 982 |
Parties | Gerhard HOJAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Gerhard Hojan, Petitioner, v. Julie L. Jones, etc., Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Neal Andre Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Todd Gerald Scher, Assistant Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, and Jessica Leigh Houston, Staff Attorney, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant/Petitioner
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida; and Lisa–Marie Krause Lerner, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Appellee/Respondent
Gerhard Hojan was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree premeditated murder, one count of attempted first-degree felony murder, three counts of armed kidnapping, and two counts of armed robbery. Hojan was sentenced to death. This Court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Hojan v. State , 3 So.3d 1204 (Fla.), cert. denied , Hojan v. Florida , 558 U.S. 1052, 130 S.Ct. 741, 175 L.Ed.2d 521 (2009).
Hojan now appeals the denial of his initial motion for postconviction relief and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the postconviction court's denial of relief but grant Hojan a new penalty phase based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision in Hurst v. State (Hurst ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016).1
This Court summarized the relevant facts on direct appeal as follows:
Hojan , 3 So.3d at 1207–09 (footnote omitted).
On November 19, 2010, Hojan filed a "Motion to Vacate Judgment of Convictions and Sentences with Special Request for Leave to Amend," raising nine claims, which the circuit court treated as Hojan's initial postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.2
The circuit court entered an order that summarily denied all of Hojan's claims for postconviction relief. This appeal follows. Hojan also petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus.3
We have previously established that there is a presumption that claims for relief sought in a rule 3.851 motion are presumptively entitled to a postconviction evidentiary hearing. However, the circuit court's summary judgment denying a defendant's rule 3.851 motion will be upheld if there is a conclusive showing that defendant is not entitled to relief, or the claim(s) is insufficiently pleaded.
Barnes v. State , 124 So.3d 904, 911 (Fla. 2013). As we explain below, we affirm the circuit court's summary denial of Hojan's motion for postconviction relief.
Hojan raised four subclaims pertaining to alleged trial court error: (1) failure to subject certain analysis of forensic evidence introduced by the State's expert witness to a Frye 4 hearing; (2) failure to inquire into whether Hojan knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda 5 rights; (3) failure to recognize that Hojan was entitled to relief under the Vienna Convention;6 and (4) failure to disallow the jury selection process, as unorthodox and unconstitutional.
In light of the record before us, we determine that the circuit court found conclusive evidence that Hojan was not entitled to relief based on any of the subclaims under his overall claim of trial court error. Notwithstanding the absence of trial court error, we specifically comment below about Hojan's assertion that the jury selection procedure in his case was unorthodox and unconstitutional.
Hojan asserts that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to address counsel's ineffectiveness for failing to challenge certain forensic evidence analysis in a Frye hearing. However, the record shows that the circuit court did not err in summarily denying this subclaim as being insufficiently pleaded and lacking merit. Relying on the authority of Ramirez v. State , 810 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2001), the circuit court rejected as conclusory Hojan's assertion that a 2009 report promulgated by the National...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Silvia
...regardless of the majority's unwillingness to mention this fact, Hurst applies retroactively to Silvia's case. E.g., Hojan v. State, 212 So.3d 982, 999 (Fla. 2017) (" Hurst appl [ies] retroactively to defendants, like Hojan, whose sentences were not yet final when the Supreme Court issued R......
-
State v. Smith
...(Fla. 2017) (same); Ault v. State , 213 So.3d 670 (Fla. 2017) (same); Dubose v. State , 210 So.3d 641 (Fla. 2017) (same); Hojan v. State , 212 So.3d 982 (Fla. 2017) (same); Durousseau v. State , 218 So.3d 405 (Fla. 2017) (same); Calloway v. State , 210 So.3d 1160 (Fla. 2017) (same); McGirth......
-
Tisdale v. State
...held that Hurst error is not harmless in cases where the jury's recommendation is not unanimous. See, e.g. , Hojan v. State , 212 So.3d 982, 1000 (Fla. 2017) (determining that Hurst error was not harmless because the jury did not return a unanimous recommendation for death).Accordingly, we ......
-
Hojan v. State
...pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 seeking to vacate his convictions and sentences of death. Hojan v. State (Hojan II ), 212 So. 3d 982, 988 (Fla. 2017). The circuit court summarily denied all of Hojan's claims, and Hojan appealed to this Court and petitioned for a writ of......
-
Chapter 3-2 Statute of Limitations
...641 So. 2d 66, 68-69 (Fla. 1994).[20] Hess v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 175 So. 3d 687, 694 (Fla. 2015). See generally Hojan v. State, 212 So. 3d 982, 995 (Fla. 2017) (holding constitutionally protected rights were "waived because Hojan has not raised them in the present appeal.")[21] Fla. S......
-
Chapter 3-2 Statute of Limitations
...641 So. 2d 66, 68-69 (Fla. 1994).[21] Hess v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 175 So. 3d 687, 694 (Fla. 2015). See generally Hojan v. State, 212 So. 3d 982, 995 (Fla. 2017) (holding constitutionally protected rights were "waived because Hojan has not raised them in the present appeal.")[22] Fla. S......