Opinion ID: 1917399
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: clarifications in the law

Text: The United States Supreme Court in Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 121 S.Ct. 712, 148 L.Ed.2d 629 (2001), held that whereas a change in the law may be analyzed in terms of retroactivity, a clarification in the law does not implicate the issue of retroactivity. Petitioner Fiore was convicted of violating a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the operation of a hazardous waste facility without a permit, even though the Commonwealth conceded that he in fact possessed a permit. [6] The state supreme court declined review and the conviction became final. Subsequently, the state supreme court reviewed the case of Fiore's codefendant, Scarpone, and held, on identical facts, that the statute had not been violated. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Fiore's case and, after soliciting a response from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, ruled as follows: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's reply specifies that the interpretation of [the statute] set out in Scarpone merely clarified the statute and was the law of Pennsylvaniaas properly interpretedat the time of Fiore's conviction. Because Scarpone was not new law, this case presents no issue of retroactivity. Rather, the question is simply whether Pennsylvania can, consistently with the Federal Due Process Clause, convict Fiore for conduct that its criminal statute, as properly interpreted, does not prohibit. This Court's precedents make clear that Fiore's conviction and continued incarceration on this charge violate due process. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids a State to convict a person of a crime without proving the elements of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, failure to possess a permit is a basic element of the crime of which Fiore was convicted. And the parties agree that the Commonwealth presented no evidence whatsoever to prove that basic element. To the contrary, the Commonwealth, conceding that Fiore did possess a permit, necessarily concedes that it did not prove he failed to possess one. The simple, inevitable conclusion is that Fiore's conviction fails to satisfy the Federal Constitution's demands. Fiore, 531 U.S. at 228-29, 121 S.Ct. 712 (citations omitted). It thus is clear under Fiore that, if a decision of a state's highest court is a clarification in the law, due process considerations dictate that the decision be applied in all cases, whether pending or final, that were decided under the same version (i.e., the clarified version) of the applicable law. Otherwise, courts may be imposing criminal sanctions for conduct that was not proscribed by the state legislature. Although Florida courts have not previously recognized the Fiore distinction between a clarification and change, we conclude that this distinction is beneficial to our analysis of Florida law. Previously, this Court analyzed such cases strictly under Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla.1980), and used the term change broadly to include what in fact were both clarifications and true changes. [7] As explained in Fiore, however, a simple clarification in the law does not present an issue of retroactivity and thus does not lend itself to a Witt analysis. [8] Whereas Witt remains applicable to changes in the law, Fiore is applicable to clarifications in the law.