Opinion ID: 1682303
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Change in Decisional Law Versus Statutory Law

Text: In the analysis of this certified question, the first distinction with regard to retroactive application of changes in the law is that between decisional law and statutory law. In Florida, the Witt [2] analysis determines whether a change in the decisional law will receive retroactive application: [F]or a change of law to be applied retroactively it must: (1) originate in [the Supreme Court of Florida] or the United States Supreme Court; (2) be constitutional in nature; and (3) represent a development of fundamental significance. New v. State, 807 So.2d 52, 53 (Fla.2001) (citing Witt, 387 So.2d at 931). Contrary to the argument of Smiley, the decision of this Court in Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 (Fla.1999), is not applicable to resolve the current question of whether section 776.013 should apply to pending cases, because Weiand determined the retroactivity of a change in the decisional law. See id. at 1058 (holding that the rule established in Weiand, which was that a defendant had no duty to retreat from his or her residence before using deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm from a co-occupant, would apply to all cases that were pending but not to convictions that were final). Conversely, a different analysis must be applied to determine the question of whether a change in the statutory law, such as with section 776.013, should receive retroactive application. See Thompson v. State, 887 So.2d 1260, 1263-64 (Fla. 2004) ([T]he question of retroactivity under Witt is not applicable to this case because we are examining a change in the statutory law of this state not a change in decisional law. . . . ).