44 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 6 | 6 |
Witt v. Stategreen2 sentences2024The Witt analysis starts with the understanding that a change of law does not apply retroactively “unless the change: (a) emanates from this Court or the United States Supreme Court, (b) is constitutional in nature, and (c) constitutes a development of fundamental significance.” Id. at 931 . 2024The Witt analysis starts with the understanding that a change of law does not apply retroactively “unless the change: (a) emanates from this Court or the United States Supreme Court, (b) is constitutional in nature, and (c) constitutes a development of fundamental significance.” Id. at 931 . | 5 | 17 |
State v. Callawaygreen2 sentences2013The Effect on the Administration of Justice of a Retroactive Application of the New Rule The Florida Supreme Court has held that, in undertaking a Witt analysis to determine retroactive application of a new rule, “the fundamental consideration is the balancing of the need for decisional finality against the concern for fairness and uniformity in individual cases.” Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 408 (quoting State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 986 (Fla.1995)). 2013The Effect on the Administration of Justice of a Retroactive Application of the New Rule The Florida Supreme Court has held that, in undertaking a Witt analysis to determine retroactive application of a new rule, “the fundamental consideration is the balancing of the need for decisional finality against the concern for fairness and uniformity in individual cases.” Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 408 (quoting State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 986 (Fla.1995)). | 5 | 8 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2013The Effect on the Administration of Justice of a Retroactive Application of the New Rule The Florida Supreme Court has held that, in undertaking a Witt analysis to determine retroactive application of a new rule, “the fundamental consideration is the balancing of the need for decisional finality against the concern for fairness and uniformity in individual cases.” Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 408 (quoting State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 986 (Fla.1995)). 2013The Effect on the Administration of Justice of a Retroactive Application of the New Rule The Florida Supreme Court has held that, in undertaking a Witt analysis to determine retroactive application of a new rule, “the fundamental consideration is the balancing of the need for decisional finality against the concern for fairness and uniformity in individual cases.” Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 408 (quoting State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 986 (Fla.1995)). | 5 | 7 |
Hughes v. Stategreen2 sentences2016In its analysis of retroactivity, the majority gives a wave-of-the-hand dismissal to the carefully reasoned decision in Johnson.25 Our decision in Johnson followed the trajectory established by our earlier decision in Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2005), which applied a Witt analysis to conclude that the decision in Apprendi26—which unquestionably spawned both Ring and Hurst v. Florida— should not be applied retroactively. 2016In its analysis of retroactivity, the majority gives a wave-of-the-hand dismissal to the carefully reasoned decision in Johnson.25 Our decision in Johnson followed the trajectory established by our earlier decision in Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2005), which applied a Witt analysis to conclude that the decision in Apprendi26—which unquestionably spawned both Ring and Hurst v. Florida— should not be applied retroactively. | 4 | 7 |
Ferguson v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 4 | 4 |
McCuiston v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 4 | 4 |
State v. Glenngreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 3 | 4 |
State v. Iacovonegreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 2 | 5 |
State v. Klaymangreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 2 | 4 |
Delgado v. Statered2 sentences2004Compare State v. Stevens, 714 So.2d 347 (Fla.1998) (determining that Court's decision in State v. Iacovone, 660 So.2d 1371 (Fla.1995), which invalidated the statutory penalties for attempted second- and third-degree murder of a law enforcement officer, met all three prongs of Witt and should be applied retroactively) with Delgado v. State, 776 So.2d 233, 241 , 241 n. 7 (Fla.2000) (concluding that Court's interpretation of the burglary statute did not meet the second or third prongs of the Witt test and could not be applied retroactively). 2004Compare State v. Stevens, 714 So.2d 347 (Fla.1998) (determining that Court's decision in State v. Iacovone, 660 So.2d 1371 (Fla.1995), which invalidated the statutory penalties for attempted second- and third-degree murder of a law enforcement officer, met all three prongs of Witt and should be applied retroactively) with Delgado v. State, 776 So.2d 233, 241 , 241 n. 7 (Fla.2000) (concluding that Court's interpretation of the burglary statute did not meet the second or third prongs of the Witt test and could not be applied retroactively). | 2 | 3 |
Stovall v. Dennogreen2 sentences2020Regarding the third prong of the Witt analysis, a decision is of fundamental significance when it either (1) places beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or to impose certain penalties or (2) when the rule is of sufficient magnitude to necessitate retroactive application under the retroactivity test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297 (1967), and Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 636 (1965). 2020Regarding the third prong of the Witt analysis, a decision is of fundamental significance when it either (1) places beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or to impose certain penalties or (2) when the rule is of sufficient magnitude to necessitate retroactive application under the retroactivity test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297 (1967), and Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 636 (1965). | 1 | 7 |
Hale v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 1 | 7 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2011In Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837 (Fla.2005), the Supreme Court of Florida used the Witt standard to assess whether Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), should be applied retroactively. 2011In Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837 (Fla.2005), the Supreme Court of Florida used the Witt standard to assess whether Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), should be applied retroactively. | 1 | 4 |
Dixon v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 1 | 4 |
Teague v. Lanegreen2 sentences2013I recognize of course that the United States Supreme Court and the federal courts determine the question of retroactivity by applying the standard established in Teague, 489 U.S. at 310 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 (1989), while Florida courts continue to apply the Witt standard. 2013I recognize of course that the United States Supreme Court and the federal courts determine the question of retroactivity by applying the standard established in Teague, 489 U.S. at 310 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 (1989), while Florida courts continue to apply the Witt standard. | 1 | 3 |
Callaway v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636, 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (discussing why a Witt analysis may not apply to a rule 3.800(a) claim). 2019See Callaway v. State, 642 So. 2d 636, 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (discussing why a Witt analysis may not apply to a rule 3.800(a) claim). | 1 | 2 |
Chandler v. Crosbygreen2 sentences2024See Asay, 210 So. 3d at 19-20 (concluding the Court’s extensive reliance on the old rule, “spann[ing] decades’ worth of capital cases,” “weigh[ed] heavily - 15 - against retroactive application” of the new rule); Chandler, 916 So. 2d at 730 (concluding the Witt factors weighed against retroactive application in part because the old rule “was relied on by trial courts for over 20 years”); Williams, 421 So. 2d at 515 (“That significant reliance has been placed on the old rule is an important factor supporting prospective application of the new rule.”). 2024See Asay, 210 So. 3d at 19-20 (concluding the Court’s extensive reliance on the old rule, “spann[ing] decades’ worth of capital cases,” “weigh[ed] heavily - 15 - against retroactive application” of the new rule); Chandler, 916 So. 2d at 730 (concluding the Witt factors weighed against retroactive application in part because the old rule “was relied on by trial courts for over 20 years”); Williams, 421 So. 2d at 515 (“That significant reliance has been placed on the old rule is an important factor supporting prospective application of the new rule.”). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Asay, 210 So. 3d at 19-20 (concluding the Court’s extensive reliance on the old rule, “spann[ing] decades’ worth of capital cases,” “weigh[ed] heavily - 15 - against retroactive application” of the new rule); Chandler, 916 So. 2d at 730 (concluding the Witt factors weighed against retroactive application in part because the old rule “was relied on by trial courts for over 20 years”); Williams, 421 So. 2d at 515 (“That significant reliance has been placed on the old rule is an important factor supporting prospective application of the new rule.”). 2024See Asay, 210 So. 3d at 19-20 (concluding the Court’s extensive reliance on the old rule, “spann[ing] decades’ worth of capital cases,” “weigh[ed] heavily - 15 - against retroactive application” of the new rule); Chandler, 916 So. 2d at 730 (concluding the Witt factors weighed against retroactive application in part because the old rule “was relied on by trial courts for over 20 years”); Williams, 421 So. 2d at 515 (“That significant reliance has been placed on the old rule is an important factor supporting prospective application of the new rule.”). | 1 | 1 |
Mark James Asay v. State of Florida, SC16-102 Mark James Asay v. Julie L. Jones, etc. & SC16-628 Mark James Asay v. Julie L. Jones, etc.green2 sentences2024See Asay, 210 So. 3d at 19-20 (concluding the Court’s extensive reliance on the old rule, “spann[ing] decades’ worth of capital cases,” “weigh[ed] heavily - 15 - against retroactive application” of the new rule); Chandler, 916 So. 2d at 730 (concluding the Witt factors weighed against retroactive application in part because the old rule “was relied on by trial courts for over 20 years”); Williams, 421 So. 2d at 515 (“That significant reliance has been placed on the old rule is an important factor supporting prospective application of the new rule.”). 2024See Asay, 210 So. 3d at 19-20 (concluding the Court’s extensive reliance on the old rule, “spann[ing] decades’ worth of capital cases,” “weigh[ed] heavily - 15 - against retroactive application” of the new rule); Chandler, 916 So. 2d at 730 (concluding the Witt factors weighed against retroactive application in part because the old rule “was relied on by trial courts for over 20 years”); Williams, 421 So. 2d at 515 (“That significant reliance has been placed on the old rule is an important factor supporting prospective application of the new rule.”). | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See id.; Hernandez v. State, 124 So. 3d 757, 764 (Fla. 2012); Witt, 387 So. 2d at 929 . 2020See id.; Hernandez v. State, 124 So. 3d 757, 764 (Fla. 2012); Witt, 387 So. 2d at 929 . | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cotto v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Orlando Moragreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gonzalez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Danforth v. Minnesotagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Windom v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mortimer v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Heuton v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fiore v. Whitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barnum v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sweeney v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jeffrey P. Curtis and Martin A. Sax v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Monlyn v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cooper v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lawrence v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anderson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Spencer v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Caballero v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas E. King v. State of Floridagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Linkletter v. Walker
red
2 sentences2020Regarding the third prong of the Witt analysis, a decision is of fundamental significance when it either (1) places beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or to impose certain penalties or (2) when the rule is of sufficient magnitude to necessitate retroactive application under the retroactivity test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297 (1967), and Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 636 (1965). 2020Regarding the third prong of the Witt analysis, a decision is of fundamental significance when it either (1) places beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or to impose certain penalties or (2) when the rule is of sufficient magnitude to necessitate retroactive application under the retroactivity test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297 (1967), and Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 636 (1965). | 4 | 2005–2020 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 4 | 2005–2011 |
Carter v. State
green
2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 3 | 2001–2006 |
Whitehead v. State
green
2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Hayes v. State
green
2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Carawan v. State
red
2 sentences2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla 2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005) (holding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply retroactively under Witt); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (concluding that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), does not satisfy the Witt standard for retroactive application); State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248, 254 (Fla.2002) (deciding that the decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Bunkley v. State
green
2 sentences2006Additionally, the district court explained that in deciding the case before it, the court had considered this Court's decisions in Klayman and Bunkley v. State, 833 So.2d 739 (Fla.2002), in which we held that Florida Supreme Court decisions that "clarify" statutory law apply to all cases, pending or final, while decisions that "change" the law require a Witt analysis to determine if the decision should be applied retroactively. 2003In deciding this case, we have considered State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248 (Fla.2002), and Bunkley v. State, 833 So.2d 739 (Fla.2002), in which the court explained that supreme court decisions that “clarify” statutory law apply to all cases, pending or final, while decisions that “change” the law require a Witt analysis. | 2 | 2003–2006 |
Miller v. Florida
green
2 sentences1994Our analysis in this ease appears to be consistent with the First District’s decision to retroactively re-sentence prisoners whose guideline sentences were affected by Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 , 107 S.Ct. 2446 , 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). 1994Our analysis in this ease appears to be consistent with the First District’s decision to retroactively re-sentence prisoners whose guideline sentences were affected by Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 , 107 S.Ct. 2446 , 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Frank A. Walls v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2020In concluding that Hall met the third prong of the Witt analysis, we declared “that Hall warrants retroactive application as a - 10 - development of fundamental significance that places beyond the State of Florida the power to impose a certain sentence—the sentence of death for individuals within a broader range of IQ scores than before.” Walls, 213 So. 3d at 346 . 2020In concluding that Hall met the third prong of the Witt analysis, we declared “that Hall warrants retroactive application as a - 10 - development of fundamental significance that places beyond the State of Florida the power to impose a certain sentence—the sentence of death for individuals within a broader range of IQ scores than before.” Walls, 213 So. 3d at 346 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Knight v. York, Superintendent, Albemarle Correctional Institution green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Bennafield v. United States green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Brown v. United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Rebecca Lee Falcon v. State of Florida green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Barrios-Cruz v. State green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Roper v. Simmons green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Woodson v. North Carolina green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Lockett v. Ohio green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Eddings v. Oklahoma green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Sumner v. Shuman green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Kleppinger v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Hearns green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Barnum green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| DeStefano v. Woods green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Figarola v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Leonard v. State neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Nash v. Blumex U. S. A., Inc green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Grey Bear v. United States green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Sepulveda v. Alameida, Director, California Department of Corrections green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Beaton v. Crosby, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Taylor v. Florida green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Herrera v. Sublett neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Horn v. Banks green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Osterback v. Ingram green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Proffitt v. Florida green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Conahan v. State green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Wright v. State green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Marquard v. State green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| United States v. Walls green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.