Bunkley v. State
Citation | 833 So.2d 739 |
Decision Date | 21 November 2002 |
Docket Number | No. SC01-297.,SC01-297. |
Parties | Clyde Timothy BUNKLEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
R. John Cole, II, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Richard E. Doran, Attorney General, Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Law, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Respondent.
We have for review Bunkley v. State, 768 So.2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), wherein the district court certified the following question:
Should the decision in L.B. v. State, 700 So.2d 370 (Fla.1997), that a folding pocketknife with a blade of four inches or less falls within the statutory exception to the definition of a "weapon" found in § 790.001(13), be applied retroactively?
Bunkley, 768 So.2d at 511. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer in the negative, as explained herein.
Bunkley burglarized an unoccupied Western Sizzlin' Restaurant on April 23, 1987. He was arrested at the scene and later charged with and convicted of armed burglary, possession of burglary tools, and resisting arrest without violence. In light of his fifteen prior convictions, he was sentenced to life imprisonment on the armed burglary count, five years' imprisonment on the possession of burglary tools count, and six months' imprisonment on the resisting arrest count. His convictions and sentences were affirmed.1
Bunkley subsequently sought postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and the relevant facts are set forth in the district court opinion below:
Bunkley, 768 So.2d at 510 (citations omitted). The district court declined to apply L.B. retroactively, affirmed the denial of rule 3.850 relief, and certified the above question.
The issue presented in this case, i.e., whether a decision of this Court must be applied retroactively, is a pure question of law, subject to de novo review.2
The petitioner in L.B. v. State, 700 So.2d 370 (Fla.1997), was charged with and convicted of possessing a "weapon" on school grounds based on her possession of a folding knife with a 3¾-inch blade:
L.B., 700 So.2d at 371 (footnote and citations omitted).
This Court disagreed that the phrase "common pocketknife" was unconstitutionally vague:
L.B., 700 So.2d at 372 (citations omitted).
The Court concluded that the petitioner's knife plainly fell within the meaning of "common pocketknife" but added the following caveat:
We note that neither the Attorney General nor this Court maintains that four inches is a bright line cutoff for determining whether a particular knife is a "common pocketknife." We merely hold that appellant's knife fits within the exception to the definition of weapon found in section 790.001(13).
The burglary statute, which differentiates between simple and armed burglary, provides in relevant part:
§ 810.02, Fla. Stat. (1985) (emphasis added).
The phrase "dangerous weapon" has appeared in the above statute since it was enacted in 18953 and is not defined therein. To determine the meaning of that phrase, courts traditionally have turned to chapter 790, Florida Statutes, entitled "Weapons and Firearms." Section 790.001 defines the term "weapon" and expressly excepts a "common pocketknife":
(13) "Weapon" means any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife.
§ 790.001(13), Fla. Stat. (1985) (emphasis added).4 This definition was based on the description of "weapon" found in the precursor statute, section 790.01, which was enacted in 1901 and also excepted a "common pocketknife."5
Intent is a polestar that guides a court's inquiry into whether a change in the law should be given prospective or retroactive application. As a rule, a change in the statutory law is presumed to operate prospectively absent a clear showing of contrary intent.6 A change in the decisional law in a nonfinal case, on the other hand, is presumed to operate in all other nonfinal cases.7 A change in either the statutory or decisional law may operate retroactively when retroactive application is expressly provided,8 but regardless of intent, the issue of retroactivity is ultimately controlled by overarching constitutional principles.
The Court in Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.1980), was confronted with the following question: must a change in the law that is announced in a nonfinal case be applied in final cases?9 The Court held that only "jurisprudential upheavals" will be applied in final cases, and that "evolutionary refinements" in the law will not be applied in final cases. The Court explained:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bunkley v. State, SC01-297.
...J. This case is before the Court on remand from the United States Supreme Court for reconsideration of our decision in Bunkley v. State, 833 So.2d 739 (Fla.2002),vacated, 538 U.S. 835, 123 S.Ct. 2020, 155 L.Ed.2d 1046 (2003). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Flor......
-
State v. Barnum
...court explained that in deciding the case before it, the court had considered this Court's decisions in Klayman and Bunkley v. State, 833 So.2d 739 (Fla.2002), in which we held that Florida Supreme Court decisions that "clarify" statutory law apply to all cases, pending or final, while deci......
-
Fernandez v. Smith, 07 Civ. 6310(DC).
...that L.B. represented an "evolutionary refinement" in the law that could not be applied retroactively. Id. (citing Bunkley v. State, 833 So.2d 739, 744 (Fla.2002)). The Florida Supreme Court, however, characterized its decision in L.B. as part of a "century-long evolutionary process." Id. a......
-
Luurtsema v. Comm'r Of Correction
...of whether a particular habeas petitioner is entitled to benefit from a new interpretation of a criminal statute. See Bunkley v. State, 833 So. 2d 739, 743-44 (Fla. 2002); Powell v. State, 574 N.E.2d 331, 334 (Ind. App. 1991); Clem v. State, 119 Nev. 615, 626-28, 81 P.3d 521 (2003); State v......