From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henderson v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Jun 26, 1997
698 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1997)

Summary

explaining that when the Florida Supreme Court explicitly states that a ruling is prospective only, the ruling does not take effect until the time for rehearing has run

Summary of this case from Kraay v. State

Opinion

No. 89,178

June 26, 1997

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance Third District — Case No. 95-1421 (Dade County).

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Consuelo Maingot, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Respondent.


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.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995) APPLY TO CASES IN WHICH THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS TOOK PLACE AND THE ENTIRE TRIAL CONCLUDED DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONEY OPINION BUT PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT CONEY BECAME FINAL BY THE DISPOSITION OF ALL MOTIONS FOR REHEARING DIRECTED TO THAT OPINION?

Henderson v. State, 679 So.2d 805, 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V,§ 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The District Court of Appeal held that Coney did not apply to Henderson's case, because Coney was pending on rehearing at the time of Henderson's trial.

In Coney, we expressly stated our ruling was prospective only.Coney, 653 So.2d at 1013. When we state that a ruling is prospective only, the ruling does not take effect until the time for rehearing has run. See, e.g., Allen v. State, 662 So.2d 323, 329 (Fla. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1326, 134 L.Ed.2d 477 (1996). Accordingly, where the jury selection process took place before Coney was final, Coney does not apply.

We answer the certified question in the negative and approve the decision of the District Court of Appeal to the extent it is consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

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


Summaries of

Henderson v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Jun 26, 1997
698 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1997)

explaining that when the Florida Supreme Court explicitly states that a ruling is prospective only, the ruling does not take effect until the time for rehearing has run

Summary of this case from Kraay v. State

explaining that when the Florida Supreme Court explicitly states that a ruling is prospective only, the ruling does not take effect until the time for rehearing has run

Summary of this case from Kraay v. State
Case details for

Henderson v. State

Case Details

Full title:DARRYL HENDERSON, PETITIONER, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Jun 26, 1997

Citations

698 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1997)

Citing Cases

Watkins v. Gilbride Heller Brown

If we accepted GHB's contention, "finality" would occur inall cases at the district court level even though…

State v. Mejia

Where, as here, the jury selection process took place before Coney was final, Coney does not apply. See also…