STEVEN MICHAEL CADY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2001-04-20
No. 5D00-3237
COBB and PALMER, JJ., concur.
783 So. 2d 332 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2001)

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.

Synopsis

Steven Cady appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief motion challenging his hydrocodone trafficking conviction in light of Hayes v. State, which narrowed the drug trafficking statute. The Fifth District affirms the denial based on its prior holding in Russo that Hayes did not fundamentally change the law, but certifies a conflict with the Fourth District's Klayman decision regarding retroactive application.


Holding

The Fifth District affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that Hayes did not fundamentally change the law so as to justify retroactive application in post-conviction proceedings, following its prior decision in Russo v. State. However, the court acknowledged conflict with the Fourth District's Klayman decision and certified the question for resolution.


Headnotes

[1] A prior judicial decision holding that a drug trafficking statute does not apply to possession of a specific drug in amounts less than a certain dosage unit does not nece…

[2] A court may certify a question to a higher court when there is a conflict between different appellate districts regarding the retroactive application of a prior decision.

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

Key Quotes

“In Hayes, the court held that the drug trafficking statute did not apply to possession of hydrocodone in amounts less then fifteen milligrams per dosage unit.”

Establishes the substantive holding in Hayes that narrowed the drug trafficking statute's application.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Cady was convicted of trafficking in hydrocodone. The Florida Supreme Court later decided Hayes v. State, holding that the drug trafficking statute di…

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
’ PLEUS, J.

’ PLEUS, J.

Steven Cady appeals the trial court’s denial of his 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. He contends that the trial court erred by refusing to retroactively apply the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1999) to his conviction of trafficking in hydrocodone. In Hayes, the court held that the drug trafficking statute did not apply to possession of hydrocodone in amounts less then fifteen milligrams per dosage unit. In Russo v. State, 770 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), this court held that Hayes did not fundamentally change the law so as to justify a retroactive application of the decision in post-conviction proceedings. In Klayman v. State, 765 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), rev. granted, No. SC00-1723, — So. 2d - (Fla. Feb.14, 2001), the Fourth District certified the issue of whether Hayes should be retroactively applied. The Klayman court held that Hayes should be retroactively applied on the ground that those persons having been sentenced pursuant to State v. Hayes, 720 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) and State v. Baxley, 684 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), rev. den., 694 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1997) may have been sentenced to disproportionate sentences as compared to those sentenced in other districts. See Ray v. State, — So. 2d -, 2001 WL 38017 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan.17, 2001).

Based upon this court’s decision in Russo, the trial court’s order denying Cady’s 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. We acknowledge, however, conflict with Klayman, and certify the question of whether Hayes should be applied retroactively.

AFFIRMED; QUESTION CERTIFIED.

COBB and PALMER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw