KHALID HAYAT CHAUDHRY
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 double jeopardy challenge under Lee v. State is not retroactively applicable to convictions that became final before Lee was decided.
[1] A double jeopardy violation is a fundamental error that may be raised for the first time in a postconviction motion.
[2] A judicial decision establishing a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure does not apply retroactively to cases that were final before the decision was rendered.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of three counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor, with all three counts alleging identical dates, venue, acts, and the…
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 Double Jeopardy Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D2023-0014 _____________________________
KHALID HYAT CHAUDHRY,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Shonna Young Gay, Judge.
January 31, 2024 PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Dettle v. State, 334 So. 3d 346, 346–47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), rev. granted, SC22-417, 2022 WL 3656814 (Fla. Aug. 25, 2022). B.L. THOMAS and ROWE, JJ., concur; BILBREY, J., concurs with opinion.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ BILBREY, J., concurring.
At trial on the third amended information, Appellant was convicted of three counts of unlawful sexual activity “with a person 16 or 17 years of age” by “[a] person 24 years of age or older.” § 794.05(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). We affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Chaudhry v. State, 236 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). Appellant then filed a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, raising twelve grounds. Almost a year later, Appellant’s new postconviction counsel filed an amended motion for postconviction relief raising sixteen grounds. Appellant challenges the denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief.
The third amended information alleged identical dates, venue, acts, and the same victim for all three counts of unlawful sexual activity. Appellant claims a double jeopardy violation since the three counts are identical in the third amended information. See Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297, 1303–04 (Fla. 2018); Amison v. State, 332 So. 3d 593, 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). A double jeopardy violation is fundamental error that may be raised for the first time in a postconviction motion. Smith v. State, 741 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Nonetheless, Appellant is not entitled to relief.
In Dettle v. State, 334 So. 3d 346, 346–47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), rev. granted, SC22-417, 2022 WL 3656814 (Fla. Aug. 25, 2022), we held that “Lee does not apply retroactively to cases such as Appellant’s that were already final when Lee was decided.” In Dettle we cited State v. Glenn, 558 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990), and Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980), in denying retroactive application to Lee. The Florida Supreme Court in Glenn had stated, “that only major constitutional changes of law which constitute a development of fundamental significance are cognizable under a motion for postconviction relief.” 558 So. 2d at 6. We then granted Dettle’s motion for certification and certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court. Dettle, 334 So. 3d at 347.
Here, since Appellant’s direct appeal was final before Lee was decided, then relying on Dettle, we are correct to conclude that Lee is not retroactive and to affirm.
_____________________________
W. Charles Fletcher of Law Office of W. Charles Fletcher, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Zachary F. Lawton, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dettle v. State, 384 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 2024)…e consider a certified question of great public importance concerning the application of that rule: “Does the holding in [Lee] provide retroactive relief in postconviction proceedings pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850?” Dettle v. State (Dettle II), 334 So. 3d 346, 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021).² The answer is no: Lee does not apply retroactively to cases that were already final when it was decided. Because the answer to the certified question is the same whether we apply the retroactivity standard we adopted in W…
-
Khalid Hayat Chaudhry v. State, 334 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)…e victim for all three counts of unlawful sexual activity. Appellant claims a double jeopardy violation since the three counts are identical in the third amended information. See Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297, 1303–04 (Fla. 2018); Amison v. State, 332 So. 3d 593, 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). A double jeopardy violation is fundamental error that may be raised for the first time in a postconviction motion. Smith v. State, 741 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Nonetheless, Appellant is not entitled to relief…1 / 5
-
Scott v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Glenn, 558 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990)
- Sherman v. State, 272 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
- Smith v. State, 741 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Khalid Hayat Chaudhry v. State, 334 So. 3d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
- Khalid Hyat Chaudhry v. State, 236 So. 3d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)