JAMES T. INGRAM, *W*
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.
A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases that were final when the decision was rendered.
[1] A change in law established by a United States Supreme Court decision does not apply retroactively to criminal cases that became final before the decision was rendered.
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 intelligenceJames T. Ingram appealed the denial of his Rule 3.800 motion in a criminal case from Broward County. The underlying conviction became final in 2003.…
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 Finality Of Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
JAMES T. INGRAM, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D2025-0929
[July 2, 2025]
Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; L.T. Case No. 03-019684-CF10A.
David M. Lamos of the Law Offices of David M. Lamos, Fort Pierce, for appellant.
No appearance required for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Wainwright v. State, No. SC2025-0708, --- So. 3d ---, 2025 WL 1561151, *5-*6 (Fla. June 3, 2025) (holding that, even if Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), constitutes a change in law, it does not apply retroactively to cases that were final when it was decided).
WARNER, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
* * *