RICKIE RENORIED MATHIS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The decision in Coney v. State, which clarified a defendant's right to be present at juror challenges, applies prospectively only and does not apply to cases tried before Coney was decided.
The court reviews a certified question regarding the applicability of Coney v. State to pending cases. The prior decision in Boyett v. State addressed…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Be Present At Jury Selection cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the following question certified 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 “PIPELINE CASES,” THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES WERE PENDING ON DIRECT APPEAL OR OTHERWISE NOT YET FINAL WHEN THE OPINION WAS RELEASED?
Mathis v. State, 675 So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla.App.1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in Boyett v. State, 668 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1996). We acknowl edged there that we had incorrectly accepted the State’s concession that not allowing Coney to be present at the immediate site of juror challenges was error. In Boyett we wrote, “In Coney, we held for the first time that a defendant has a right under [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.180 to be physically present at the immediate site where challenges are exercised.” Boyett, 688 So. 2d at 309. We therefore receded from that part of Coney where we applied the new definition of “presence” to Coney himself. The result of Coney remained unchanged, however, since we had found the error harmless. We went on to address prospective application:
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, 21 Fla. L. Weekly at S535, — So. 2d at-(citations omitted).
Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court of appeal.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Isiaih Neal v. State, 697 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ent with the possibility that Neal actually was at the bench conference. Because no error appears in the record, we must affirm. See Mathis v. State, 683 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (Criminal Division en banc), decision approved on other grounds, 688 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1997). Beyond that, even if a Coney error had appeared in this record, it was not preserved for review. This court recently has held that the failure to obtain a Coney waiver cannot be raised on direct appeal unless an objection on that grou…
Authorities Cited
- Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995)
- Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Tropic Tint OF Jupiter, Inc., 668 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Rickie Renoried Mathis v. State, 675 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)