Flowers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Flowers v. State

54 So. 3d 1049, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1921, 2011 WL 520545

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 16, 2011

DocketNo. 4D10-2345

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 54 So. 3d 1049 (Flowers v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flowers v. State, 54 So. 3d 1049, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1921, 2011 WL 520545 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 So. 3d 1049, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1921, 2011 WL 520545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flowers-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack