Case Name: Armando CHAVEZ, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-07-02
Citations: 698 So. 2d 284
Docket Number: Nos. 96-727, 96-338
Parties: Armando CHAVEZ, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT, JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH, GREEN, FLETCHER, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 698
Pages: 284–288

Head Matter:
Armando CHAVEZ, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 96-727, 96-338.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 2, 1997.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1997.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Steven Groves, and Doquyen T. Nguyen, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT, JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH, GREEN, FLETCHER, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.

Opinion:
ON REHEARING EN BANC
GERSTEN, Judge.
Appellant, Armando Chavez, Jr. ("defendant"), appeals his conviction for resisting arrest with violence contending that the trial court erred by allowing voir dire to proceed without determining whether the defendant waived his right to be present during a sidebar conference where peremptory challenges were exercised. We agree and reverse on this ground.
While visiting Key West in 1995, two tourists were robbed after a man jumped out from behind nearby bushes, and stole a black leather back-pack from one of the victims. They chased the man a few blocks until finding a police officer who put out a BOLO for the man.
Two officers responding to the BOLO saw a man matching the description. One of the officer's knew the man by name and asked him to approach the patrol car. The man glanced at the police car, but continued to walk. A moment later, another police officer arrived on the scene with the victims who positively identified the defendant as the robber.
After the identification was made, an officer started running over to the defendant who then fled. The defendant jumped over a fence and momentarily eluded the officer. The officer then saw the defendant in the backyard of a residence and ordered him to the ground. The defendant raised his hands and clenched his fists. The officer unsuccessfully attempted to place an "escort" hold on the defendant, and the two men exchanged punches. The defendant was then arrested.
At trial, counsel for both parties conducted a side-bar discussion for jury selection. The transcript does not reflect whether the defendant was present during the side bar discussion at which jurors were selected and peremptories were exercised.
At the time of trial, the case of Coney v. State, 653 So.2d 1009 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995), controlled. Coney mandated that a defendant had a right to be physically present at a bench conference to discuss juror challenges. See Coney, 653 So.2d at 1013. If the defendant chose to waive his presence, the trial court had to ask the defendant whether the waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.
Here, the record does not reflect whether the defendant was present at the sidebar conference. Nevertheless, the court or the State needed to establish that all due process requirements had been met. See Coney, 653 So.2d at 1013; Alexander v. State, 575 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Here, the trial court erred by allowing the jury selection process to proceed without determining whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to be present during the sidebar conference pursuant to Coney, 653 So.2d at 1009.
The State argues that had amended Rule 3.180(b) been applied to the original trial, no error would exist in the eases before us, because of the amended rule's more liberal definition of "present." They contend that amended Rule 3.180(b) was satisfied at trial, because the defendant was physically present in the courtroom, and he had a meaningful opportunity to be heard through counsel.
The State concludes that the trial's result on remand would be identical to the first trial, because the court would be required to conduct the second trial exactly as it did during the first trial. Thus, the defendant would not gain any new rights or benefits at a subsequent trial.
However, this does not change the immutable fact that when the case was tried, the defendant's rights were violated under existing law. Because the trial took place before amended Rule 3.180(b) became effective on January 1, 1997, at 12:01 a.m., the defendant is entitled to a new trial under Coney. See Coney v. State, 691 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(amended Rule 3.180(b) cannot be retroactively applied); Matthews v. State, 687 So.2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(case involving Coney error reversed and remanded for new trial where trial took place before amendment to Rule 3.180 became effective, and appellate ruling was entered after amended rule was effective). Any other interpretation of the rule would result in a retroactive application of the law.
A plain reading of the amended rule, as well as general rules of construction, shows that the Supreme Court of Florida envisioned a prospective application of the amended rule. See Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 106 (Fla.1996)(absent express legislative statement to the contrary, enactment affecting substantive rights is presumed to apply prospectively); Seaboard System R.R., Inc. v. Clemente, 467 So.2d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). In similar situations, a presumption usually exists that provisions added by amendment that affect existing rights are intended to operate prospectively only. See State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla.1983); People v. Dean, 175 Ill.2d 244, 222 Ill.Dec. 413, 677 N.E.2d 947 (1997)(refusing to retroactively apply constitutional amendment, that if applied would nullify the need for retrial, because defendant would be deprived of substantive right guaranteed to him at time of trial).
Here, during trial, the defendant had a right to stand with his attorney at sidebar to discuss when peremptories should be exercised. The process of exercising perempto-ries is essential to the fairness of the trial and one of a defendant's most important substantive rights. See Francis v. State, 413 So.2d 1175 (Fla.1982); Gelsey v. State, 565 So.2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Consequently, the defendant also had the right to expressly waive this right under Coney. If the defendant had exercised his right to be present at the sidebar, and directed his attorney in the exercising-of peremptory challenges, the outcome of the trial may have been different. See Coney, 653 So.2d at 1009; Lane v. State, 459 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
In conclusion, clearly under Coney the trial court erred in both cases where the defendant was not present at the sidebar conference and there was no affirmative record showing either that the defendant expressly waived his presence, or that he ratified the peremptory challenges made by his counsel. Therefore, both cases must be reversed and remanded for new trials. See Coney, 653 So.2d at 1009; Wilson v. State, 680 So.2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), rev. granted, 689 So.2d 1072 (Fla.1997). Guided by fealty to the Supreme Court of Florida, this Court will not condone retroactive application of the law under these circumstances.
Reversed and remanded for new trials.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT, JORGENSON, GODERICH, GREEN, FLETCHER and SHEVIN, JJ., concur.
. In case no. 96-338, the defendant was also convicted of resisting arrest without violence re-suiting in two additional points of appeal. The defendant contends that it was error to convict an both resisting arrest with violence, and resisting arrest without violence claiming both counts stem from a continuous series of events. We disagree because the offenses were separated by a temporal break in time and place, thus constituting two distinct offenses. See Marion v. State, 674 So.2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Lifted v. State, 643 So.2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
We also disagree with the defendant's claim that the State failed to give sufficient notice under the habitual offender statute. Forty-seven days written notice was more than adequate time to allow defense counsel to prepare a submission on behalf of the defendant. See § 775.084(3)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). See also Massey v. State, 609 So.2d 598 (Fla.1992); Bradford v. State, 567 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 577 So.2d 1325 (Fla.1991).
. Subsequent to the defendant's conviction, and shortly after oral argument was heard before this Court, the Supreme Court of Florida amended Rule 3.180(b), Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, to provide that;
A defendant is present for purposes of this rule if the defendant is physically in attendance for the courtroom proceeding, and has a meaningful opportunity to be heard through counsel on the issues being discussed.
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure; Amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190, 685 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1996). In a footnote to this amendment, the court stated that the amendment superseded its earlier decision in Coney. Amendments, 685 So.2d at 1255 n. 2.