TRACY LEE COHEN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Erlinger v. United States does not constitute a development of fundamental significance and therefore does not apply retroactively to post-conviction relief proceedings.
[1] A decision of the United States Supreme Court does not apply retroactively to post-conviction proceedings unless it constitutes a development of fundamental significance…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“even if Erlinger constitutes a change of law, it does not apply retroactively as it is not a development of fundamental significance under our existing retroactivity test”
Court's reasoning for affirming the circuit court decision, citing Wainwright v. State
Tracy Lee Cohen filed a Rule 3.800 appeal in Duval County Circuit Court challenging his conviction. Cohen argued that Erlinger v. United States, 602 U…
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.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________ Case No. 5D2025-0264 LT Case No. 16-2013-CF-4966-A _____________________________ TRACY LEE COHEN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ 3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
R. Anthony Salem, Judge.
Tracy Lee Cohen, Cross City, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee. June 11, 2025
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Wainwright v. State, 50 Fla. L. Weekly S108 (Fla. June 3, 2025) (rejecting Wainwright’s argument that Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), constitutes a new rule of law that should apply retroactively to his case “because even if Erlinger constitutes a change of law, it does not apply retroactively” as it “is not a development of fundamental significance under our existing retroactivity test”).