Humphrey v. Inch
In brief
The Supreme Court declined to review Humphrey's case, so it did not decide whether Asay's rule violates the Constitution.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 18, 2020
- What it’s about
- This case involves a petition for a writ of certiorari and a motion to proceed as a pauper filed by Humphrey, seeking review of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- Who it affects
- For Humphrey, the denial ended his request for Supreme Court review, but it did not decide whether Florida's rule violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
In Asay, the Florida Supreme Court said Hurst v. Florida did not apply to cases that became final before Ring v. Arizona; Humphrey challenged that conclusion under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Question presented
Whether the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Asay v. State, 210 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016), which held that Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), does not apply retroactively to cases that were final before Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished this docket action. The denial ends Humphrey's request for Supreme Court review in this docket.
Documents
Opinions
Key filings
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.