Jordan v. State
On certiorari review, the Fifth District held that the State's failure to give timely notice of intent to seek the death penalty within 45 days of the original 2009 arraignment—rather than restarting the clock upon a Hurst-ordered resentencing—permanently forfeited the State's right under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.202 to conduct its own mental health examination of the capital defendant. The court rejected the State's argument that a new, timely notice filed before resentencing satisfied the rule's 'timely written notice' requirement, holding that both section 782.04(1)(b) and Rule 3.181 fix the deadline at 45 days from arraignment with no exception for resentencing. The court granted certiorari, finding the trial court's order allowing the State's examination departed from the essential requirements of law and caused irreparable harm.
Key facts
- Jordan, a capital defendant, was arraigned in 2009; the State failed to file notice of intent to seek the death penalty within 45 days of that original arraignment as required by rule.
- Following a Hurst-ordered resentencing, the State filed a timely notice of intent to seek death penalty and sought to conduct its own mental health examination of Jordan under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.202.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision resolves an important and previously undecided question for capital resentencing practice: whether a Hurst (or similar) resentencing restarts the 45-day death-penalty notice clock for purposes of the… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.