Case Name: Dale O. LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1966-02-08
Citations: 182 So. 2d 467
Docket Number: No. 65-672
Parties: Dale O. LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 182
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
Dale O. LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 65-672.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Feb. 8, 1966.
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant has appealed from an order denying his motion to vacate his judgment and sentence [murder in the first degree] under Criminal Procedure Rule No. One, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The appellee's motion to quash is before us for determination.
It is admitted that in order for appellant to prevail, it would he necessary to apply the rule of Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed. 2d 977, retroactively.
We have heretofore held that the decision of Escobedo, supra, does not apply retroactively in Florida. Bell v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 80, cert. denied, Fla.1965, 183 So.2d 209 (opinion filed November 2, 1965, not yet reported), and Thompson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 564. See Linkletter v. Walker, 1965, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601; United States ex rel. Walden v. Pate, 7 Cir., 1965, 350 F.2d 240; United States ex rel. Conroy v. Pate, N.D.Ill.1965, 240- F.Supp. 237; Hayes v. United States, E.D. Mo.1964, 236 F.Supp. 225; Ruark v. People, Colo.1965, 405 P.2d 751; In re Lopez, 1965, 62 Cal.2d 368, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 188, 398 P.2d 380; State v. Davis, 1965, 88 N.J. Super. 528, 212 A.2d 859; State v. Johnson, 1965, 43 N.J. 572, 206 A.2d 737; People v. Hovnanian, 1964, 22 App.Div.2d 686, 253 N.Y.S.2d 241; Levy, Realist Jurisprudence and Prospective Overruling, 109 U.Pa.L. Rev. 1.
The appellee's motion to quash the appeal is therefore granted.
It is so ordered.