Opinion ID: 1920305
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Retroactivity of Thompson and Related Due Process Concerns

Text: As has been the case for the past twenty-five years, the standard enunciated in Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.1980), governs the retroactivity analysis in the instant matter. With due deference to the importance of finality in any system of justice, [5] the Court in Witt determined that only those changes in the law that constitute major constitutional changes, or jurisprudential upheavals are applied retroactively. See id. at 929. Acknowledging the fact that the significance of legal developments is largely a case-by-case consideration, the Witt Court stated: [H]istory shows that most major constitutional changes are likely to fall within two broad categories. The first are those changes of law which place beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties. This category is exemplified by Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977), which held that the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of rape of an adult woman is forbidden by the eighth amendment as cruel and unusual punishment. The second are those changes of law which are of sufficient magnitude to necessitate retroactive application as ascertained by the three-fold test of Stovall [ v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967)] and Linkletter [ v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965)]. [N.25] Gideon v. Wainwright , of course, is the prime example of a law change included within this category. [N.25]. This category of law changes was adapted from Section 2.1(a)(vi) of the ABA Standards Relating to Post-Conviction Remedies (Approv. Draft 1968), which provides in relevant part: A post-conviction remedy ought to be sufficiently broad to provide relief (a) for meritorious claims challenging judgments of convictions, including claims: . . . . (vi) that there has been a significant change in law, whether substantive or procedural, applied in the process leading to applicant's conviction or sentence, where sufficient reasons exist to allow retroactive application of the changed legal standard; Id. at 929. On the opposite end of the spectrum are evolutionary refinements in the criminal law which, according to Witt, are not applied retroactively. See id. Changes falling into this category include those affording new or different standards for the admissibility of evidence, for procedural fairness, for proportionality review of capital cases, and for other like matters. Emergent rights in these categories, or the retraction of former rights of this genre, do not compel an abridgement of the finality of judgments. Id. The Witt analysis is distinct from, but informed by, the principle articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 121 S.Ct. 712, 148 L.Ed.2d 629 (2001)a case which stands for the proposition that the due process guarantee requires the prosecution to prove each essential element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 229, 121 S.Ct. 712. If it were not, the evolutionary refinement aspect of the Witt nonretroactivity analysis would automatically conflict with Fiore. That the government must prove each element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt is a bedrock principle of our criminal justice system and one that guides the review of any criminal conviction in this state. However, these due process concerns are somewhat distinct from the general legal questions pertaining to retroactivity, and the principle articulated in Fiore must be applied within the context of the constitutional and jurisprudential law governing Florida's court system. Regrettably, this Court's decision in State v. Klayman, 835 So.2d 248 (Fla. 2002), and its invocation of statutory analysis with regard to the Legislature ceding discretion to the courts for construction, apparently has substantially and unnecessarily confused the legal constructs applicable to the retroactivity analysis and due process concerns under Florida law. Klayman presented the issue as to whether our prior decision in Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1 (Fla.1999), in which this Court determined that Florida's drug trafficking statute did not apply to possession of hydrocodone in amounts under a certain threshold, should be applied retroactively. See Klayman, 835 So.2d at 250. In deciding that Hayes applied retroactively, the Klayman Court invoked the United States Supreme Court's holding in Fiore as a basis for determining that any decision of the Florida Supreme Court clarifying extant law must be applied in all cases, whether pending or final, that were decided under the same version of that law. See id. at 252. According to the Klayman Court: A clarification is a decision of this Court that says what the law has been since the time of enactment. Id. at 253. Determination of whether a decision clarifies a statute turns first on the language of the decision itself; if the decision is silent or ambiguous, the Court looks to the statute to discern the intent. See id. Where the Legislature cedes no discretion to the courts either directly or indirectly but instead employs definitive language that ordinarily requires no judicial construction, the Legislature intends that the statute be applied as enacted. Id. (footnotes omitted). One week after issuing the decision in Klayman, this Court issued its decision in Bunkley v. State, 833 So.2d 739 (Fla.2002) ( Bunkley I ), vacated, 538 U.S. 835, 123 S.Ct. 2020, 155 L.Ed.2d 1046 (2003), a case which required this Court to consider and determine whether to retroactively apply the holding in L.B. v. State, 700 So.2d 370 (Fla.1997). In L.B., this Court considered whether the common pocketknife exception to the statutory definition of weapon under section 790.001(13) of the Florida Statutes (1997), was unconstitutionally vague. See id. at 371. This Court held that the exception was not unconstitutionally vague and was capable of ascertainment by Florida's juries. We determined that the term applied to the type of knife in which the blade folds into the handle permitting it to be carried in one's pocket. See id. at 372. In determining that the exception applied to the knife carried by L.B., the Court noted an opinion of the Attorney General from 1951 stating that a pocketknife with a blade of four inches or less was a common pocketknife. See id. at 373. In Bunkley I, this Court refused to apply the decision in L.B. retroactively to reverse Bunkley's conviction for armed burglary on the basis that the knife he carried during the burglary of a closed, unoccupied restaurant, which had a blade of 2 1/3 to 3 inches in length, fell within the common pocket knife exception. See Bunkley I, 833 So. at 746. This Court applied what can only be called a hybridization of the Klayman and Witt standards, [6] determining that the decision in L.B. was not a jurisprudential upheaval requiring retroactive application, but an evolutionary refinement, as evidenced by the fact that the statute ceded discretion to the courts to determine the meanings of dangerous weapon and common pocketknife in the burglary and weapon statutes since such terms would require judicial construction to provide a meaningful basis for sanction. See id. at 745. With regard to the impact of Fiore on the analysis, the Court in Bunkley I simply stated that the body of precedent regarding clarifications and the decision in Fiore itself had no application in Florida law. See id. at 744 & n. 12. Thus, within a period of one week, the Court issued two opinions articulating slightly different standards for adjudging retroactivity and reaching divergent conclusions, with Klayman holding that Fiore required relief from a final district court decision and Bunkley I holding that Fiore did not apply to cause retroactive application. This apparent irreconcilable conflict resulted, at least in part, from neither decision squarely addressing or discussing the manner in which the status of Florida law is defined at the time of conviction in cases where a Florida district court has clearly decided with finality a principle or concept of law in a particular way and the Florida Supreme Court subsequently considers and rules upon the same issue in a totally opposite manner. Any differing results could semantically be characterized as a change and the evolutionary refinement nonretroactivity position of Witt render that decision totally invalid. Most certainly, it is now clear that the due process concerns addressed in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Fiore apply to Florida cases under review by this Court, and this Court erred in Bunkley I to the extent we suggested or implied otherwise. See Bunkley v. Florida, 538 U.S. 835, 838, 123 S.Ct. 2020, 155 L.Ed.2d 1046 n (2003). The essential lesson from Fiore is that a conviction runs afoul of due process guarantees if, at the time it was rendered, the activity in which the defendant was engaged was not a crime. Thus, as stated by the United States Supreme Court in its decision in Bunkley, [7] [t]he proper question under Fiore is not whether the law has changed, but rather what the state of the law was at the time of the defendant's conviction. Id. at 840, 123 S.Ct. 2020. Instead of squarely addressing the Fiore principle, Klayman created a clarification versus change construct based on this Court's interpretation of whether the Legislature had afforded any interpretive discretion to reviewing courts in the governing statute. While championed under a banner of simplicity, that distinction appears to be confusing and unworkable in practice because it ignores the fact that in cases of statutory construction, the law is comprised of the statute plus decisional caselaw interpreting that statute. Further, a clarification or change may seem at times to be interchangeable concepts with the Florida structure in place. Thus, the law at the time a petitioner is convicted must be defined with regard to the manner in which and the extent to which the multiple district courts of appeal have determined the scope, application, and operation of the governing statute. Understanding this conclusion requires us to review the United States Supreme Court's decision in Fiore. There, Fiore was convicted of violating a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the operation of a hazardous waste facility without a permit. See Fiore, 531 U.S. at 226, 121 S.Ct. 712. Although Fiore had a permit, the state argued that he had deviated so dramatically from the permit's terms that he had violated the statute. See id. After Fiore's conviction became final, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted the statute for the first time in Commonwealth v. Scarpone, 535 Pa. 273, 634 A.2d 1109 (1993). David Scarpone was Fiore's codefendant and the two were convicted of the same crime at the same time. See Fiore, 531 U.S. at 227, 121 S.Ct. 712. In that case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Scarpone's conduct was not within the ambit of the statute, reasoning that one who deviates from the terms of a permit is not operating without a permit as required by the statute. See id. Unsuccessful in his attempts to have his own conviction set aside, Fiore commenced a federal habeas corpus action. See id. The district court granted the writ, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, determining that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had announced a new rule of law in Scarpone which was inapplicable to Fiore's already final conviction. See id. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether Fiore's conviction violated the Federal Due Process Clause. See id. In reviewing the case, the United States Supreme Court found it necessary to certify a question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, asking whether the statutory interpretation announced in Scarpone was the correct interpretation of the law at the time Fiore's conviction became final. See id. at 228, 121 S.Ct. 712. In response, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that its interpretation was not a new rule of law, but merely a clarification of the plain language of the statute, and, as such, represented the proper statement of the law on the date that Fiore's conviction became final. See id. Based upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's answer to the certified question, the United States Supreme Court held that the question presented in its review of Fiore was not one of retroactivity, but instead, whether Pennsylvania can, consistently with the Federal Due Process Clause, convict [the petitioner] for conduct that its criminal statute, as properly interpreted, does not prohibit. Id. The High Court concluded that Fiore's conviction violated due process safeguards because after the litigation in his case was final, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that failure to possess a permit was, at the time of his conviction, a basic element of the crime for which the petitioner was convicted. See id. at 229, 121 S.Ct. 712. The State's failure to prove that Fiore lacked the required permit indeed the State had conceded that Fiore possessed the required permitrendered Fiore's conviction unconstitutional. See id. Thus, Fiore requires vindication of due process guarantees by ensuring that each essential element of an offense at the time a conviction becomes final is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As stated in Fiore, and echoed again by the United States Supreme Court in Bunkley, the pertinent question from a due process perspective is the state of the law at the time of the petitioner's conviction. See Bunkley, 538 U.S. at 840, 123 S.Ct. 2020. Through constitutional structure and as expressed in numerous decisions of this Court, the district courts have been designed to be the final appellate courts in the state of Florida for the purpose of this analysis. See Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356, 1359 (Fla.1980); Stanfill v. State, 384 So.2d 141, 143 (Fla.1980) (The decisions of the district courts of appeal represent the law of Florida unless and until they are overruled by this Court....). [8] Moreover, in the absence of interdistrict conflict, decisions of the district courts represent the law of the state, binding all Florida trial courts. See Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla.1992); see also Gore v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1243, 1258 (Fla.2000) (This Court has determined the decisions of the district courts of appeal represent the law of this State unless and until they are overruled by this Court, and therefore, in the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts.), rev'd on other grounds, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S.Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000). A decision of a Florida district court of appeal is final for these purposes because in the absence of conflict with another district court decision or a decision of this Court, or certification of an issue by a district court, a United States Circuit Court of Appeals, or the United States Supreme Court, or some other Florida constitutional basis, this Court has no jurisdiction to simply and routinely review the district court decisions. [9] It is beyond dispute that this Court is without power to simply assume jurisdiction in a case to correct what we perceive as error, even if the issue appears to be important or involves the construction of a criminal statute. Thus, a decision of a district court construing a statute can remain in effect indefinitely. Clearly, continued adherence to the Klayman clarification versus change framework and searching for a Legislative delegation of interpretive power to the courts would cause, in operation, conflict with regard to our constitutional structure and the constitutionally mandated jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, propagation of the decision in Klayman is certainly not compelled by the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Fiore or Bunkley. As we must recognize, the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that the pertinent question under Fiore concerns the state of the law at the time of the conviction. See Bunkley, 538 U.S. at 840, 123 S.Ct. 2020. In reviewing this Court's decision in Bunkley I, the United States Supreme Court stated: Ordinarily, the Florida Supreme Court's holding that L.B. constitutes a change inrather than a clarification ofthe law would be sufficient to dispose of the Fiore question. By holding that a change in the law occurred, the Florida Supreme Court would thereby likewise have signaled that the common pocketknife exception was narrower at the time Bunkley was convicted. Here, however, the Florida Supreme Court said more. It characterized L.B. as part of the century-long evolutionary process. 833 So.2d, at 745. Because Florida law was in a state of evolution over the course of these many years, we do not know what stage in the evolutionary process the law had reached at the time Bunkley was convicted. The Florida Supreme Court never asked whether the weapons statute had evolved by 1989 to such an extent that Bunkley's 2 1/2to 3inch pocketknife fit within the common pocketknife exception. The proper question under Fiore is not just whether the law changed. Rather, it is when the law changed. Bunkley, 538 U.S. at 841-42, 123 S.Ct. 2020. [10] The due process concerns at root in Fiore and applied in Bunkley are satisfied by the necessary operation of Florida constitutional and decisional law, which clearly provide that the reversal of a district court interpretation of a statute by this Court necessarily changes the law as it existed at the time of a defendant's conviction. The change may result from a multitude of reasons but it would still be change nonetheless. We so held upon remand from the United States Supreme Court in Bunkley v. State, 882 So.2d 890, 897 (Fla.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 939, 125 S.Ct. 939, 160 L.Ed.2d 822 (2005) ( Bunkley II ).