In Hurst v. Florida this Court struck down Florida's
longstanding capital-sentencing procedures because they authorized
a judge, rather than a jury, to make the factual findings that
were necessary for a death sentence. On remand, the Florida Supreme
Court held that a death verdict could not be rendered without
unanimous jury findings of at least one aggravating circumstance
and that the sum of aggravation is sufficient to outweigh any
mitigating circumstances and to warrant death.
The Florida Supreme Court then held that it would apply both
the federal and state jury-trial rights retroactively to inmates
whose death sentences had not become final as of June 24, 2002
(the date of Ring v. Arizona, precursor of Hurst) but that it would
deny relief to inmates whose death sentences were final on that
date.
Mr. Owen presents the following question:
Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of Equal
Protection and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of capricious
capital sentencing impose limits upon a state court's power to
declare unconventional rules of retroactivity, and whether those
limits were transgressed here.

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of Equal Protection and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of capricious capital sentencing impose limits upon a state court's power to declare unconventional rules of retroactivity, and whether those limits were transgressed here