ISAAC SMITH
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct appeal.
[1] A change in law established by subsequent appellate decision does not apply retroactively to cases that were final on direct appeal prior to the change.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIsaac Smith filed a Rule 3.800 motion in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County. The trial court denied the motion.…
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 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
ISAAC SMITH, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D2025-1672
[August 13, 2025]
Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Daliah H. Weiss, Judge; L.T. Case No. 501997CF000036.
Isaac Smith, Malone, pro se.
No appearance required for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Wainwright v. State, 2025 WL 1561151, at *5 (Fla. 2025) (even if Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), constitutes a change of law, it does not apply retroactively).
CIKLIN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * *