ANTHONY LAWRENCE WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Anthony Wright appealed his conviction arguing that the trial court should have applied the peremptory challenge test from State v. Neil to his case. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that Neil does not apply retroactively to cases tried before the Neil decision was announced, and therefore affirmed Wright's conviction.
The court held that State v. Neil does not apply retroactively to cases tried before the Neil decision was announced. Because Wright's trial predated Neil, the trial court was not required to apply the Neil test, and no error occurred.
[1] The test outlined in State v. …
[2] The Neil decision regarding peremptory challenges is not retroactive.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although we hold that Neil should receive a new trial, we do not hold that the instant decision is retroactive. The difficulty of trying to second-guess records that do not meet the standards set out herein as well as the extensive reliance on the previous standards make retroactive application a virtual impossibility.”
The Florida Supreme Court's rationale in Neil for why the new peremptory challenge test should not be applied retroactively
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnthony Wright was tried in a case where the state attorney used peremptory challenges to strike jurors from the venire. Wright contended on appeal th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pipeline Cases cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
Anthony Wright contends that this case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court did not utilize the test outlined in State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984), regarding a party’s use of peremptory challenges.
In Neil, the Florida Supreme Court explained that:
Although we hold that Neil should receive a new trial, we do not hold that the instant decision is retroactive. The difficulty of trying to second-guess records that do not meet the standards set out herein as well as the extensive reliance on the previous standards make retroactive application a virtual impossibility. Even if retroactive application were possible, however, we do not find our decision to be such a change in the law as to warrant retroactivity or to warrant relief in collateral proceedings as set out in Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980).
457 So. 2d at 488.
The Third District, in Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and the Fourth District, in Franks v. State, 467 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), have applied Neil to “pipeline” cases. Because of specificity of the language of Neil set out above, we do not come to the same conclusion. The court in Neil gave as its reason for not applying the decision retroactively, “the difficulty of trying to second-guess records that do not meet the standards set out herein as well as the extensive reliance on the previous standards ...” (emphasis added). Since these reasons apply equally to “pipeline” cases as to cases tried and appeals completed before the decision in Neil was announced, it is our conclusion that the supreme court intended Neil to apply only to those cases going to trial subsequent to Neil.
In the instant case, the trial predated the decision in Neil and the test described there was not available to the trial court.1
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur. . It should be noted that the state attorney explained to a degree his reasons for peremptorily challenging the two black members of the venire. In view of our conclusion that Neil does not require its test to be applied retroactively, we do not review the sufficiency of the state attorney’s explanation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jones, 485 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1986)…McDONALD, Justice. We have for review Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), because of conflict with Wright v. State, 471 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), over the retroactive application of State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article Y, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and we approve the result reached in Jones. A jury convicted Jones…
-
Wright v. State, 491 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1986)…PER CURIAM. We have before us Wright v. State, 471 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), because of express and direct conflict with Franks v. State, 467 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The district court in this case concluded that this Court’s holding in Sta…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980)
- Adams v. Peat, 449 U.S. 1067 (U.S. 1980)
- Jarrett v. Jarrett, 449 U.S. 1067 (U.S. 1980)
- Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Franks v. State, 467 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)