Maxwell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maxwell v. State

69 So. 3d 1122, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15378, 2011 WL 4537180

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 28, 2011

DocketNo. 3D11-368

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 69 So. 3d 1122 (Maxwell 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

Maxwell v. State, 69 So. 3d 1122, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15378, 2011 WL 4537180 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing filed by the State of Florida, vacate and withdraw the opinion issued in this case on July 20, 2011, and substitute the following opinion in its place:

We affirm the trial court’s order denying Rudolph Maxwell’s petition for habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010) was rendered well after Maxwell’s convictions and sentences were final,¹ and it is not retroactively applicable. See Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.1980); see, e.g., Harricharan v. State, 59 So.3d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Rozzelle v. State, 29 So.3d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). There is no legal basis for reversing the trial court’s decision to deny Maxwell’s petition for habeas relief. See Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063, 1066 (Fla.1992) (“[W]e hold that any decision of this Court announcing a new rule of law, or merely applying an established rule of law to a new or different factual situation, must be given retrospective application by the courts of this state in every case pending on direct review or not yet final.... To benefit from the change in law, the defendant must have timely objected at trial if an objection was required to preserve the issue for appellate review.”)

Affirmed.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing filed by the State of Florida, vacate and withdraw the opinion issued in this case on July 20, 2011, and substitute the following opinion in its place:

We affirm the trial court’s order denying Rudolph Maxwell’s petition for habeas corpus. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252 (Fla.2010) was rendered well after Maxwell’s convictions and sentences were final,¹ and it is not retroactively applicable. See Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.1980); see, e.g., Harricharan v. State, 59 So.3d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Rozzelle v. State, 29 So.3d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). There is no legal basis for reversing the trial court’s decision to deny Maxwell’s petition for habeas relief. See Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063, 1066 (Fla.1992) (“[W]e hold that any decision of this Court announcing a new rule of law, or merely applying an established rule of law to a new or different factual situation, must be given retrospective application by the courts of this state in every case pending on direct review or not yet final.... To benefit from the change in law, the defendant must have timely objected at trial if an objection was required to preserve the issue for appellate review.”)

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 So. 3d 1122, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15378, 2011 WL 4537180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack