STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ALLEN HAMPTON, 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 court held that the decision in State v. Gray does not apply retroactively to cases where convictions were final before Gray was issued.
[1] A judicial decision that declares an offense nonexistent does not apply retroactively to cases where convictions were final before the decision was issued.
[2] A prior judicial decision that declared an offense nonexistent is not retroactively applied to cases where the offense was a valid statutory offense for a period of time…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe First District Court of Appeal reviewed a case (Hampton) that presented the same issue as a prior case (Woodley) where the lower court held that S…
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 Finality Of Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Hampton v. State, 699 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), which presents the same issue for review as did Woodley v. State, 673 So. 2d 127, 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Hampton and Woodley both question whether our decision in State v. Gray, 654 So. 2d 552 (Fla.1995), applies retroactively. The court below followed the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Woodley and held that our decision in Gray does apply retroactively. Hampton, 21 Fla. L. Weekly at D2114. However, on review, we quashed the decision in Woodley, stating:
In State v. Wilson, 680 So. 2d 411 (Fla.1996), we dealt with the issue of whether attempted felony murder was a “nonexistent” offense in the traditional sense. There we wrote:
In the earlier cases, “nonexistent” had a slightly different connotation. There, the offenses in question were never valid statutory offenses in Florida; they were simply the product of erroneous instruction. Here, attempted felony murder was a valid offense, with enumerated elements and identifiable lesser offenses, for approximately eleven years. It only became “nonexistent” when we decided Gray. Because it was a valid offense before Gray, and because it had ascertainable lesser offenses, retrial on any lesser offense which was instructed on at trial is appropriate.
Wilson, 680 So. 2d at 412-13. Consistent with this rationale, and with our statement in Gray itself that the decision “must be applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final,” we hold that Gray does not apply retroactively to those cases where the convictions had already become final before the issuance of the opinion.
State v. Woodley, 695 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1997). Accordingly, consistent with our decision in Woodley, we quash the decision of the district court below and 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
-
Janovic v. Janovic, 814 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ation of the equitable distribution scheme contained in the parties’ dissolution of marriage judgment. We conclude that the order on appeal does not violate the holding in Mansell, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court in Abernethy v. Fishkin, 699 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1997), because the order does not distribute disability retirement benefits nor does the record demonstrate that the husband will be required to utilize his disability benefits in order to comply with the Qualifying Court Order. We also conclud…1 / 2
-
Padot v. Padot, 891 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…rties from taking any action to alter or reduce the other party’s interest in retainer pay, retired pay, deferred compensation, or other military benefit. The trial court found that the situation was inequitable and that, under Abernethy v. Fishkin, 699 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1997), it had the ability to enforce the Supplemental Order “so long as no funds from the disability pool are drawn upon to fulfill the obligations” the Former Husband owed to the Former Wife. Because the Former Husband had income from his work…1 / 2
-
Longanecker v. Longanecker, 782 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…er wife had a continuing special equity interest in former husband’s military disability benefits. In Robinson, the trial court did not award the wife alimony, but rather a special equity in the husband’s military pension. In Abernethy v. Fishkin, 699 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1997), our supreme court came to a different conclusion under similar facts. In Abemethy, like in this case, the parries entered into a property settlement agreement that provided Fishkin would receive 25% of Abernethy’s Air Force retirement pa…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Collin Gray, 654 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Eduards Wilson, 680 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1996)
- State v. Woodley, 695 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1997)
- Woodley v. State, 673 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Hampton v. State, 699 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)