JOHNNIE E. HILL, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 Coney decision became final when the time for rehearing ran, and because the trial in the present case preceded that date, the defendant could not benefit from Coney.
The case involves a certified question from the Second District Court of Appeal regarding the date the Coney decision was announced and its applicabil…
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 Prospective Application Of Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review Hill v.State, 696 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), wherein the court certified:
On what date was the Coney decision “announced”?
Id. at 798-99 (quotation marks added). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently answered the above question in Henderson v. State, 698 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1997), wherein we held that Coney became final when the time for rehearing in that case had run. Because the trial in the present case preceded that date, Hill cannot reap the benefits of Coney.
We approve the result in Hill on this issue.3
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ„ concur. . In Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla.), cert, denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995), this Court held that “[l]he defendant has a right to be physically present at the immediate site where pretrial jury challenges are exercised.”
. We noted in Coney: "Our ruling today clarifying this issue is prospective only.” Id. at 1013.
. Because Coney is inapplicable to this case, the district court’s second certified question is moot:
If a Coney issue is not preserved at trial, must a prisoner file a postconviction motion alleging under oath that he or she would not have exercised peremptory challenges in the same manner as his or her attorney?
Hill v. State, 696 So. 2d at 799.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carmichael v. State, 715 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1998)…nvolved, I believe that the defendant has the right to raise the issue for the first time in a collateral proceeding. In this regard, I agree with Judge Altenbernd’s concurrence in Hill v. State, 696 So. 2d 798, 800 (Fla. 2d DCA), decision approved, 700 So. 2d 646 (Fla.1997), where he stated that: Although I conclude that Mr. Hill has the right to raise the Coney issue, I do not believe he has the right to raise it on direct appeal. There is nothing in this record to suggest that Mr. Hill would have taken an…
-
State v. Brower, 713 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1998)…. I add the caveat that an affirmance does not preclude the defendant from raising this issue by way of postconviction relief as suggested by Judge Altenbernd in his concurrence in Hill v. State, 696 So. 2d 798, 800 (Fla. 2d DCA), decision approved, 700 So. 2d 646 (Fla.1997).…
-
State v. Ellis, 718 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1998)…. I add the caveat that an affirmance does not preclude the defendant from raising this issue by way of postconvietion relief as suggested by Judge Altenbernd in his concurrence in Hill v. State, 696 So. 2d 798, 800 (Fla. 2d DCA), decision approved, 700 So. 2d 646 (Fla.1997).…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Hill v. State, 696 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Henderson v. State, 698 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1997)