Opinion ID: 1804987
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Which Standard Should We Use for Determining Retroactivity?

Text: The first question in determining retroactivity is which standard should apply. Although we have long used the standard announced in Witt, valid reasons exist for reconsidering it. Witt was based on then-existing United States Supreme Court jurisprudence on retroactivity. Since Witt, however, that jurisprudence has drastically changed.
In Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965), the Supreme Court first attempted to establish some standards for determining the retroactivity of new rules. The issue was whether Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), which made the exclusionary rule for evidence applicable to the states, applied retroactively. 381 U.S. at 636-40, 85 S.Ct. 1731. To answer the question, the Court adopted a three-part test that considered (a) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (b) the extent of reliance on the prior rule, and (c) the effect retroactive application of the new rule would have on the administration of justice. Using that standard, the Court held that Mapp would only apply to trials commencing after that case was decided. 381 U.S. at 636-40, 85 S.Ct. 1731. Two years later, in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), the Court applied the Linkletter factors and held that the rule requiring exclusion of identification evidence tainted by exhibiting the accused for identifying witnesses before trial in the absence of counsel also did not apply retroactively. 388 U.S. at 300, 87 S.Ct. 1967. Stovall also held that the new rule would not apply even to cases pending on direct review. Id. at 300-01, 87 S.Ct. 1967.
In Witt, decided in 1980, we adopted the Linkletter standards. In that case, we held that a change in the law does not apply retroactively  unless the change: (a) emanates from this Court or the United States Supreme Court, (b) is constitutional in nature, and (c) constitutes a development of fundamental significance. 387 So.2d at 931. As to consideration (c), we stated that most major constitutional changes fall into one of two categories: (1) changes which place beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties and (2) those which are of sufficient magnitude to necessitate retroactive application as ascertained by the three-fold test of Stovall and Linkletter  (the Linkletter factors). 387 So.2d at 929. [24] In Witt, we were concerned that an expansive view of retroactivity would undermine the finality of judicial decisions. We noted that [t]he reasons for narrowly limiting the grounds for collateral attack on final judgments are well known and basic to our adversary system of justice. 387 So.2d at 925 (quoting Addonizio, 442 U.S. at 184, 99 S.Ct. 2235). We also warned that [t]he doctrine of finality should be abridged only when a more compelling objective appears, such as ensuring fairness and uniformity in individual adjudications. Id. We declare[d] our adherence to the limited role for post-conviction relief proceedings, even in death penalty cases.  Id. at 927 (emphasis added). Although when we decided Witt the United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence of retroactivity was extremely complex, we distilled the three essential factors outlined above as stated in Stovall and Linkletter. Essentially, then, in Witt we adopted a narrow standard for the retroactivity of decisions, limiting retroactivity to cases involving constitutional issues of fundamental significance.
Nine years after we adopted the Linkletter factors in Witt, the United States Supreme Court revamped its retroactivity analysis. The plurality recognized that [t]he Linkletter retroactivity standard has not led to consistent results, 489 U.S. at 302, 109 S.Ct. 1060, and that commentators have `had a veritable field day' with the Linkletter standard, with much of the discussion being `more than mildly negative.' Id. at 303, 109 S.Ct. 1060. Much of the criticism concerned the Court's refusal to apply new rules even to cases still pending on direct review. See, e.g., Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 733-35, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) (holding that under the Linkletter standard Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), applied only to trials commencing after that decision had been announced). Therefore, by the time it decided Teague, the Court already had rejected that part of Linkletter in favor of applying new rules to cases pending on direct review. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). But, as the Supreme Court recognized in Teague, 489 U.S. at 305, 109 S.Ct. 1060, the problems with Linkletter were not limited to its refusal to apply new rules to cases pending on direct review. The Linkletter standard also led to disparity in the treatment of similarly situated defendants collaterally attacking their convictions. [25] Whether a defendant received the benefit of a particular decision often depended on the jurisdiction. Id. In addition, the Linkletter factors are, to an extent, vague and malleable. The extent to which courts and the public have relied on a prior rule is difficult to calculate, and the effect retroactive application of a new rule will have on the administration of justice can sometimes be unpredictable. To resolve these criticisms of Linkletter, in Teague the Supreme Court adopted the approach of Justice Harlan, expressed in cases such as Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 675, 91 S.Ct. 1160, 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part), and Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 256, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Under that approach, new rules should be applied to all cases pending on direct review and generally not be applied to cases on collateral review. [26] The Court therefore held that decisions announcing new constitutional rules would only be applied retroactively on collateral review under two circumstances: (1) decisions placing conduct beyond the power of the government to proscribe; and (2) decisions announcing a watershed rule of criminal procedure that is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. 489 U.S. at 311, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (quoting Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. at 693, 91 S.Ct. 1160 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part)). In other words, a rule must implicate the fundamental fairness of the trial. Id. at 312, 109 S.Ct. 1060. [27] The new standard in Teague substantially narrowed the circumstances in which the Supreme Court's adoption of new criminal rules apply retroactively. After Teague, such rules are presumed not to.
Although under Teague state courts are free to adopt more expansive standards for retroactivity, 28 state supreme courts, as well as the District of Columbia, have adopted the Teague standard at least to cases stemming from a federal constitutional right, and the vast majority to all questions of retroactivity. [28] Only six state supreme courts have decided against adopting Teague's retroactivity standards to questions of federal constitutional law. [29] The remaining states have not reassessed their standards for retroactivity in light of Teague. Florida is one of those states that have not addressed Teague in the fourteen years since it was decided. As several district courts of appeal have noted, [30] even after Teague this Court has continued to apply the Linkletter factors. We have never consciously considered Teague, however. In fact, we have only mentioned the case once, in describing the Eleventh Circuit's denial of habeas relief to a defendant sentenced to death. See Glock v. Moore, 776 So.2d 243, 248 (Fla.2001). [31] We should now adopt Teague in cases considering the retroactivity of decisions of the United States Supreme Court. We should not apply a different standard for determining the retroactivity of United States Supreme Court decisions than that Court itself applies. Consistency among the states  and between the state and federal courts  in applying decisions of the United States Supreme Court demands that, to the extent possible, standards for retroactivity be uniform. Otherwise, the retroactivity of a decision of the Supreme Court will depend on the jurisdiction in which the defendant was prosecuted. Although such a result is sometimes unavoidable, we should attempt as much as possible to limit such lack of uniformity. Also, even more than Linkletter, the Teague standards respect the finality of decisions, a concept we considered of utmost importance in Witt. The Court's decision to alter its retroactivity standard in Teague was based on two overriding considerations: the interests of comity and finality. 489 U.S. at 308, 109 S.Ct. 1060. Although the concept of comity is not relevant to our analysis, the concept of finality is. Regarding the importance of finality, the Court noted that [a]pplication of constitutional rules not in existence at the time a conviction became final seriously undermines the principle of finality which is essential to the operation of our criminal justice system. Without finality, the criminal law is deprived of much of its deterrent effect. Id. at 309, 109 S.Ct. 1060. See also Mackey, 401 U.S. at 691, 91 S.Ct. 1160 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part) (No one, not criminal defendants, not the judicial system, not society as a whole is benefited by a judgment providing that a man shall tentatively go to jail today, but tomorrow and every day thereafter his continued incarceration shall be subject to fresh litigation....), quoted in Teague, 489 U.S. at 309, 109 S.Ct. 1060. Of course, this compelling interest in finality applies just as strongly to state court determinations of retroactivity. In fact, it is the very foundation of our analysis in Witt. As we acknowledged there, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 was originally patterned after the federal habeas corpus rule and was promulgated to provide a method of reviewing a conviction based on a major change of law, where unfairness was so fundamental in either process or substance that the doctrine of finality had to be set aside. Witt, 387 So.2d at 927. In Witt, we recognized that only a sweeping change of law ... [that] drastically alter[s] the substantive or procedural underpinnings of a final conviction and sentence, id. at 925, should be applied retroactively because applying any other standard would destroy the stability of the law, render punishments uncertain and therefore ineffectual, and burden the judicial machinery of our state, fiscally and intellectually, beyond any tolerable limit. Id. at 929-30. Clearly, our interests in finality and the narrow retroactive application of new legal principles coincides with the interests the Supreme Court articulated in Teague. As illustrated in section II A of this opinion, however, the Supreme Court has found that the Linkletter factors, the underpinning of our retroactivity analysis in Witt, do not well serve these interests. Therefore, I believe we should adopt the retroactivity analysis announced in Teague in determining whether we should retroactively apply new constitutional rules emanating from the United States Supreme Court. As I demonstrate below, although I believe we should adopt the Teague standard, I do not believe it ultimately matters in determining whether Ring applies retroactively. Whether we analyze the issue under Teague (as I do in part II B below) or under Witt (as I do in part II C), the result is the same: Ring does not apply retroactively.