Title: Ermon Lee Lane v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC00-1917
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: April 12, 2001

Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-1917
____________
ERMON LEE LANE,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[April 12, 2001]
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court for review on an issue certified to be of great
public importance.  See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.  The District Court certified
the following question:
SHOULD THE DECISION IN PARKER V. STATE,
408 SO. 2D 1037 (FLA. 1982), BE OVERRULED IN
FAVOR OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE
EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF OF
CONVICTED FELON STATUS IN FIREARM
VIOLATION CASES ESTABLISHED FOR FEDERAL
COURTS IN OLD CHIEF V. UNITED STATES, 519
U.S. 172, 117 S. CT. 644, 136 L. ED. 2D 574 (1997)?
1Review of this case was delayed when counsel for the petitioner failed to
seek review on petitioner’s behalf and belated review was later sought and granted
through a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
-2-
Lane v. State, 706 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).  The petitioner contends, and the
State concedes, that the outcome of this case is controlled by our decision in
Brown v. State, 719 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998), wherein we answered the same
question in the affirmative and held that the defendant was entitled to a new trial. 
The State concedes, and we agree, that the same outcome is mandated here.1 
Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative in accord
with Brown, quash the district court decision, and remand for further proceedings
consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
HARDING, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which
WELLS, C.J., concurs.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
HARDING, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in part and dissent in part for the reasons stated in my concurring in
part and dissenting in part decision in Brown v. State, 719 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1998). 
I agree with the procedure adopted by the majority.  However, as I stated in Brown,
-3-
this change in procedure should be applied prospectively.  See Armstrong v. State,
642 So. 2d 730, 738 (Fla. 1994).  The trial in Lane’s case was held prior to our
decision in Brown, and, therefore, the new procedure should not apply.
WELLS, C.J., concurs.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Certified Great Public Importance
Third District - Case No. 3D96-2325
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Assistant Public
Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Frederick Sands, Assistant Attorney
General, Miami, Florida,
for Respondent