DAVID KLAYMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
David Klayman appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief motion, arguing that the Florida Supreme Court's recent Hayes v. State decision—which limited the drug trafficking statute's application to hydrocodone—should be retroactively applied to his conviction. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the Hayes decision had constitutional ramifications warranting retroactive application and certification of a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.
The court held that Hayes v. State should be retroactively applied because the decision emanates from the Florida Supreme Court, implicates constitutional matters, and constitutes a development of fundamental significance. The court reversed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the validity of Klayman's sentence and for resentencing if appropriate.
[1] A supreme court decision interpreting a drug trafficking statute, which holds that the statute does not apply to possession of a controlled substance in amounts under a c…
[2] A change in decisional law is retroactively applicable if it emanates from the supreme court, implicates matters that are constitutional in nature, and constitutes a deve…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“imposition of a hefty criminal sentence pursuant to a patently "irrational" sentencing scheme "could not withstand a due process analysis" of any sort”
Establishes that sentences under an irrational scheme violate due process, supporting retroactive application
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKlayman was convicted of trafficking in hydrocodone and possession, sale, and delivery of alprazolam. His sentence was rendered or upheld pursuant to …
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 Decisional Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
David Klayman appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction re lief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He contends that the court erred in failing to apply the supreme court’s recent decision of Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1999), to his conviction of trafficking in hydrocodone, and possession, sale, and delivery of alprazolam.- We reverse.
In Hayes, the supreme court quashed this court’s decision in the underlying case of State v. Hayes, 720 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), quashed, 750 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1999), and held that the drug trafficking statute (section 893.135(l)(c)l, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996)) did not apply to possession of hydrocodone in amounts under fifteen milligrams per dosage unit. Appellant argues that the supreme court’s decision in Hayes should be given retroactive application because the effect of the decision has constitutional ramifications for those persons whose sentence was rendered or upheld pursuant to State v. Baxley, 684 So. 2d 831, 832-33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and our decision in State v. Hayes. We agree. In State v. Stevens, 714 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1998), the supreme court concluded:
We agree with the district court’s conclusion that [State v.] Iacovone, [660 So. 2d 1371 (Fla.1995) ] meets the three-part test for retroactive application of a change in decisional law set forth in Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1980): The decision in Iacovone (a) emanates from this Court, (b) implicates matters that are constitutional in nature, and (e) constitutes a development of fundamental significance. See Stevens [v. State], 691 So. 2d [622, (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ] at 623-24. Indeed, imposition of a hefty criminal sentence pursuant to a patently “irrational” sentencing scheme “could not withstand a due process analysis” of any sort. State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983, 986 (Fla.1995). “The concern for fairness and uniformity in individual cases outweighs any adverse impact that retroactive application of the rule might have on decisional finality.” Id. at 987.
Id. at 348; see also House v. State, 696 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(“To determine whether a decision should be retroactively applied, ‘the fundamental consideration is the balancing of the need for decisional finality against the concern for fairness and uniformity in individual cases.’’’)(quoting State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983, 986 (Fla.1995)). Those people charged, convicted, and sentenced under this court’s decision in State v. Hayes and the fifth district’s decision in Baxley may have been sentenced to disproportionate sentences as compared to those persons sentenced in the other districts.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for 3.850 relief and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine the validity of his sentence pursuant to Hayes v. State, and for resentencing if appropriate.
However, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:
Should the supreme court’s decision in Hayes v. State be retroactively applied?
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WARNER, C.J., DELL and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Klayman, 835 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2002)…SHAW, J. We have for review Klayman v. State, 765 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), wherein the district court certified the following question: Should the supreme court’s decision in Hayes v. State, [750 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1999)] be retroactively applied? Klayman, 765 So. 2d at 785. We have jurisdiction. See art.…1 / 2
-
Bunkley v. State, 882 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2004)…edent after their convictions were final should be retroactively applied. See Bunkley v. State, 768 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), approved, 833 So. 2d 739 (Fla.2002), vacated, 538 U.S. 835, 123 S.Ct. 2020, 155 L.Ed.2d 1046 (2003); Klayman v. State, 765 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), approved, 835 So. 2d 248 (Fla.2002). As indicated at the outset of this opinion, the decisions of this Court in Bunkley and Klayman were released within a week of each other. Klayman was released on November 14, 2002, and Bunkl…
-
State v. Martin, 805 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. We affirm on the authority of Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1999) and Klayman v. State, 765 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We certify the same question as was certified in Klayman. POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Kathyrn Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1999)
- State v. Iacovone, 660 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Baxley, 684 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- State v. Hayes, 720 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- State v. Solomon Stevens, 714 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1998)
- House v. State, 696 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)