Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Motion For Leave To File Amended Amicus Brief
Motion For Leave To File Amended Amicus Brief
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
______________________________________________________________________________
THOMAS BEVEL,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
______________________________________________________________________________
TERENCE OLIVER,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
____________________/
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED AMICUS BRIEF
BRIEF ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS HURST, BEVEL, AND OLIVER
COME NOW Amici Curiae Justice Harry Lee Anstead, Judge Rosemary Barkett,
Martha Barnett, Henry Coxe, Talbot Sandy DAlemberte, Justice Gerald Kogan,
Florida Association of the Criminal Defense Lawyers (FACDL), Florida Capital
Resource Center (FCRC), and Florida International Universitys Floridas Center for
Capital Representation (FCCR), and move this Honorable Court for leave to file an
amended brief on behalf of Appellants Hurst, Bevel, and Oliver. In support thereof,
Amici state:
1.
following the United States Supreme Courts decision in Hurst v. Florida on January
16, 2016.
2.
brief in support of Appellants Hurst, Bevel, and Oliver. The State objected to amicis
motion for leave to file the brief. The Court accepted the brief for consideration.
3.
the brief in support of the appellants, and co-counsel have conducted additional
analyses that they believe will be helpful to the Court in resolving the all-important
issues pending post-Hurst in these and other cases.
4.
to opposing counsel to determine the States position on this motion. Carine Mitz,
who is representing the state in Hurst and Bevel, indicated by email that given the
proximity of this filing to oral argument for Mr. Hurst, scheduled for May 5, 2016,
the state strenuously objects to amici filing an amended brief. By the time of this
filing, counsel had not yet received a response to her email from counsel for the State
in Mr. Olivers matter, Suzanne Bechard.
5.
brief, including analysis of two non-Florida cases that applied the same post-Ring
remedy that amici urge in their amended brief. Because of the number of amici
involved in this matter, the significant issues at stake, and the workloads of cocounsel, Amici could not file this brief any sooner.
WHEREFORE, amici on behalf of Appellants Hurst, Bevel, and Oliver, move
for leave to file an amended brief in the above-styled causes. The amended brief
and companion appendix was filed simultaneously with this motion.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Undersigned counsel hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing has been furnished via email service, this the 3rd day of May, 2016, to:
Hurst v. State, SC12-1947
Carine Mitz, AAG
carine.mitz@myfloridalegal.com
Rick A. Sichta
Joe Hamrick
Susanne K. Sichta
rick@sichtalaw.com
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Robert C. Josefsberg
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.
City National Bank Bldg.
25 West Flagler St., Ste. 800
Miami, FL 33130
(305) 358-2800
Fla. Bar No. 40856
rjosefsberg@podhurst.com
/s/Robert G. Kerrigan
Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin, McLeod
& Thompson, LLP
P.O. Box 12009
Pensacola, FL 32591
(850) 444-4444
Fla. Bar No. 134044
bob@kerrigan.com
/S/Karen M. Gottlieb
Fla. Center for Capital Representation
FIU College of Law
11200 S.W. 8th Street, RDB 1010
Miami, FL 33199
(305) 348-3180
Fla. Bar No. 0199303
/s/Sonya Rudenstine
Attorney at Law
528 N. Main Street
Gainesville, FL 32601
(352) 359-3972
Fla. Bar No. 0711950
srudenstine@yahoo.com
MAY 3, 2016