STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES L. HANNAH, 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.
The State appeals a trial court's grant of post-conviction relief to Charles Hannah based on a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision in State v. Lee that retroactively invalidated Hannah's drug conviction near a school. The appellate court reversed the retroactive application of Lee but remanded for consideration of Hannah's ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Only the Florida Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court can adopt a change of law sufficient to precipitate a post-conviction challenge to a final conviction; therefore, Hannah cannot obtain relief based on the retroactive application of Lee. However, Hannah's ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires an evidentiary hearing on remand.
[1] A change in the law sufficient to precipitate a post-conviction challenge to a final conviction and sentence can only be adopted by the Florida Supreme Court or the Unite…
[2] A trial court errs in retroactively applying an intermediate appellate court's decision to grant post-conviction relief.
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“Only the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court can adopt a change of law sufficient to precipitate a post-conviction challenge to a final conviction and sentence.”
Establishes the standard that retroactive application of new law is limited to decisions from the highest courts, not intermediate appellate decisions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Hannah pleaded guilty on April 1, 1991, to purchasing drugs within 1,000 feet of Pine Ridge Center School in violation of section 893.13(2)(e)…
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 Nonexistent Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Appellee, Charles Hannah, was initially charged with having violated section 893.-13(2)(e), by purchasing drugs within 1,000 feet of a school. Hannah plead guilty to the charge and judgment, was entered against him on April 1, 1991. The school involved was the Pine Ridge Center School. In State v. Lee, 583 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), an opinion issued on July 3, 1991, this court held that the Pine Ridge Center School was not a “school” within the meaning of section 893.13(2)(e). Id. at 1055. In his rule 3.850 motion, Hannah argued that he was sentenced for a nonexistent crime, relying upon this court’s opinion in Lee. Hannah also argued that his trial counsel did not have Hannah’s best interests in mind, because counsel failed to advise him to plead nolo contendere in light of the issue regarding Pine Ridge Center School, an issue that had arisen in several cases prior to Hannah’s plea conference. The trial court granted Hannah’s motion stating in part:
THE COURT having considered the grounds for the Motion and considered the applicable law finds that the decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal entitles the defendant to Post Conviction Relief.
We agree with the state that the trial court erred in applying this court’s decision in Lee retroactively. Only the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court can adopt a change of law sufficient to precipitate a post-conviction challenge to a final conviction and sentence. Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980). However, we do not know whether the trial court would find merit in Hannah’s second ground for relief. We remand for an evidentiary hearing on that second ground.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
STONE, POLEN and' KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- State v. LEE, 583 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)