BILLY L. CULPEPPER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2025-09-10
No. 2025-1360
Bloch, J., Emas, J., Lobree, J., Bokor, J.
2025 FL 7869 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2025)

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.

Holding

A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases that were final when the decision was issued.

Headnotes

[1] A change in law does not apply retroactively to cases that were final when the change was decided.

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
Facts & Procedural History

Billy L. Culpepper appealed a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County. The appeal involved the retroactive application of Erlinger v. United State…

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.

Topics
Finality Of Conviction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Finality Of Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Bokor

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 10, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1360 Lower Tribunal No. F98-42611 ________________

Billy L. Culpepper, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jason Edward Bloch, Judge.

Billy L. Culpepper, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392, 399 (Fla. 2025)

Footnotes
2 (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); Ford v. State, 402 So. 3d 973, 981 (Fla. 2025) (“But Erlinger was a direct-appeal case—not a postconviction case like Ford’s—and it involved required jury findings regarding an element. Based on these fundamental distinctions, it is clear that Erlinger provides no support for vacating Ford's death sentences.”); Arias v. State, 413 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw