ALFREDCO LETT, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1996-12-05
No. 87541
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
687 So. 2d 1296 Florida Supreme Court (1996)

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.


Holding

The court held that the Coney decision, clarifying prospective application of a rule of law, does not apply to cases already tried before the rule was announced.


Facts & Procedural History

The case involves a certified question regarding the applicability of the Coney decision to 'pipeline cases' pending direct review or not yet final wh…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a decision certifying the following question to be of great public importance:

DOES THE DECISION IN CONEY [v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.1995)] APPLY TO “PIPELINE CASES,” THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES WERE PENDING ON DIRECT REVIEW OR NOT YET FINAL DURING THE TIME CONEY WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE OPINION?

Lett v. State, 668 So. 2d 1094, 1095-96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in Boyett v. State, 688 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1996). There we wrote:

In Coney, we expressly held that “our ruling today clarifying this issue is prospective only.” Unless we explicitly state otherwise, a rule of law which is to be given prospective application does not apply to those cases which have been tried before the rule is announced. Because Boyett had already been tried when Coney issued, Coney does not apply.

Boyett, 688 So. 2d at 310 (citations omitted). Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw