CORDELL FLOWERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Collateral Review cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s sixth motion for postconviction relief which argued that the decision in Arizona v. Gant, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), applies retroactively to his 1997 conviction. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b)(2). This conviction became final when this court affirmed the judgment and sentence in 1998. Flowers v. State, 717 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (Table).
Applying the retroactivity analysis of Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.1980), we hold that the decision in Gant is an evolutionary refinement in Fourth Amendment law and not a development of fundamental significance, a major constitutional change, or jurisprudential upheaval that requires retroactive application to cases on collateral review. See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837 (Fla.2005); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400 (Fla.2005); Chandler v. Crosby, 916 So.2d 728 (Fla.2005); State v. Barnum, 921 So.2d 513 (Fla.2005).
Additionally, we note that, under the facts of this case, Gant would not have compelled a different result on appellant’s 1997 motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lebron v. State, 135 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2014)…present Slovis as a witness, but instead relied exclusively upon the testimony of Norgard even though Lebrón challenges several aspects of Slovis' performance during his 1998 guilt phase trial. . As noted by the Fourth District in Flowers v. State, 54 So. 3d 1049, 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Gant is "an evolutionary refinement in Fourth Amendment law and not a development of fundamental significance, a major constitutional change, or jurisprudential upheaval that r…
-
Sims v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
-
Wilson v. State, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…is an evolutionary refinement in . . . law and not a development of fundamental significance, a major constitutional change, or jurisprudential upheaval that requires retroactive application to cases on collateral review." See Flowers v. State, 54 So. 3d 1049, 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Based on the limited record presented to this court, we cannot tell whether the conditions of Mr. Wilson's release from his prior prison sentence for the purposes of a Lewars analysis can be determined from the face of…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009)
- Johnson v. State, 904 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2005)
- Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2005)
- Chandler v. Crosby, 916 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2005)
- State v. Barnum, 921 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2005)