STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
CARLOS OMAR MEJIA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between appellate decisions regarding whether the Coney rule (requiring knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to be present at jury selection challenges) applied retroactively to a trial that commenced before Coney became final. The Court held that Coney did not apply retroactively and therefore did not govern Mejia's trial.
The Court held that Coney did not apply retroactively to Mejia's trial because jury selection commenced before Coney became final. The Court therefore did not need to address the conflict between the First District's opinion (holding Coney violations are fundamental error) and Gibson (holding Coney issues must be preserved by objection at trial).
[1] A judicial ruling that is prospective only does not take effect until the time for rehearing has run or rehearing has been denied.
[2] A court's ruling on jury selection procedures does not apply to cases where jury selection commenced before the ruling became final.
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“When we state that a ruling is prospective only, the ruling does not take effect until the time for rehearing has run or rehearing, if requested, has been denied.”
Establishes the Court's standard for when prospective rulings become effective
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlos Omar Mejia was tried in a case where jury selection commenced on January 23, 1995. The trial court did not ensure that Mejia executed a knowing…
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 Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
[*340] PER CURIAM.
We granted review of Mejia v. State, 675 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), because of conflict with the opinion in Gibson v. State, 661 So. 2d 288 (Fla.1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. In Mejia, the First District Court of Appeal examined whether the trial court committed error in failing to ensure that Mejia executed a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to be present at bench conferences where peremptory challenges were exercised. The district court stated that although it was unclear whether Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.1995), applied to the case or not, it would assume for purposes of its opinion that Coney did apply. Mejia, 675 So. 2d at 999.
In Coney, this Court held that a defendant has the right to be physically present at the immediate site where pretrial juror challenges are exercised, but that the right can be waived if the court certifies “through proper inquiry that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” Coney, 653 So. 2d at 1013. Although the Mejia court ultimately held that any error was harmless, and therefore Mejia was not entitled to relief, it concluded that a violation of Coney constituted fundamental error which may be raised for the first time on appeal. Mejia, 675 So. 2d at 999, 1001. The State argues that this conflicts with this Court’s opinion in Gibson, where this Court held that a Coney issue was not preserved by objection at trial. See Gibson, 661 So. 2d at 291.
We find it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether there is conflict with this Court because we find that Coney did not apply to the decision in Mejia. Jury selection in Mejia commenced on January 23, 1995, but Coney did not become final until April 27, 1995. When we state that a ruling is prospective only, the ruling does not take effect until the time for rehearing has run or rehearing, if requested, has been denied. See, e.g., Allen v. State, 662 So. 2d 323, 329 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1326, 134 L.Ed.2d 477 (1996). Where, as here, the jury selection process took place before Coney was final, Coney does not apply. See also Henderson v. State, No. 89, 178, 693 So. 2d 32 (Fla. June 26,1997).
We approve the decision of the district court, although not the rationale. We remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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
Cited By (15 total)
-
Jimenez v. State, 703 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1997)…required the trial court to obtain from the defendant an on-the-record personal waiver of presence from the immediate site where pretrial juror challenges were being exercised, and we stated that the ruling was prospective only.6 In State v. Mejia, 696 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla.1997), we ruled that Coney does not apply to trials that were conducted prior to April 27, 1995.7 Thus, we find no error. We also find no merit to Jimenez’s claim that the trial court impermissibly restricted his right to cross-examinatio…
-
Carmichael v. State, 715 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1998)…le only to those cases falling within a narrow window — i.e., where jury selection took place after April 27, 1995 (the date Coney became final), and before January 1, 1997 (the date the amendment to rule 3.180 became effective). See State v. Mejia, 696 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1997); Amendments. . We later held the Coney rule inapplicable to Coney himself and other "pipeline” defendants. Boyett v. State, 688 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1996). . Gibson’s trial took place before Coney was issued; his appeal took place after. As…
-
Lewek v. State, 702 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…87-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(en banc)(Levy, J., dissenting), the Florida Supreme Court has not stated as much. Furthermore, consistent with the Florida Supreme Court’s repeated statement that the Coney rule is not retroactive, see, e.g., State v. Mejia, 696 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1997); Henderson v. State, 698 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1997); Boyett v. State, 688 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1996), the majority of Florida district courts, including this Court, has specifically held that the 1997 amendment to rule 3.180(b) shall not be appl…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995)
- Allen v. State, 662 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1995)
- Gibson v. State, 661 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1995)
- Mejia v. State, 675 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)