Henderson v. State
| Decision Date | 26 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 89178,89178 |
| Citation | 698 So.2d 1205 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly S384 Darryl HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Consuelo Maingot, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, 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, --- U.S. ----, 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. State
...in the present case transpired, but before trial. 2. Our conclusion in this regard finds support in the decision in Henderson v. State, 698 So.2d 1205 (Fla.1997), where the supreme court accepted jurisdiction to answer this certified DOES THE DECISION IN CONEY v. STATE, 653 So.2d 1009 (Fla.......
-
Lewek v. State
...Court's repeated statement that the Coney rule is not retroactive, see, e.g., State v. Mejia, 696 So.2d 339 (Fla.1997); Henderson v. State, 698 So.2d 1205 (Fla.1997); Boyett v. State, 688 So.2d 308 (Fla.1996), the majority of Florida district courts, including this Court, has specifically h......
-
Watkins v. GILBRIDE HELLER & BROWN, PA
...the Watkins v. NCNB case—the entity which had the final say and thus administered finality to the final judgment. E.g., Henderson v. State, 698 So.2d 1205 (Fla.1997). GHB also makes a policy argument of sorts, apparently based on its belief that the Florida Supreme Court's jurisdiction is s......
-
City of Hollywood v. Witt
...853 So.2d at 303. 6. The mandate did not issue in Tableau until August 20, 2003, after the trial judge ruled. See Henderson v. State, 698 So.2d 1205 (Fla.1997)(prospective ruling does not take effect until time for rehearing has ...