Lett v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Lett v. State

687 So. 2d 1296, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 536, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 2115, 1996 WL 694179

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 1996

DocketNo. 87541

StatusPublished

This text of 687 So. 2d 1296 (Lett v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lett v. State, 687 So. 2d 1296, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 536, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 2115, 1996 WL 694179 (Fla. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a decision certifying the following question to be of great public importance:

DOES THE DECISION IN CONEY [v. State, 653 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1995)] APPLY TO “PIPELINE CASES,” THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES WERE PENDING ON DIRECT REVIEW OR NOT YET FINAL DURING THE TIME CONEY WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE OPINION?

Lett v. State, 668 So.2d 1094, 1095-96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We answered this question in Boyett v. State, 688 So.2d 308 (Fla.1996). There we wrote:

In Coney, we expressly held that “our ruling today clarifying this issue is prospective only.” Unless we explicitly state otherwise, a rule of law which is to be given prospective application does not apply to those cases which have been tried before the rule is announced. Because Boyett had already been tried when Coney issued, Coney does not apply.

Boyett, 688 So.2d at 310 (citations omitted).

[1297]*1297Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

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