Opinion ID: 4376408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of Griffith v. Kentucky

Text: On appeal, Trice argues that he is entitled to federal habeas relief because the state post-conviction court unreasonably applied Griffith in failing to retroactively apply to his case the change in law announced in Weiand. Based on Weiand, Trice argues that he is entitled to a new trial where the jury should be properly instructed that, for his self-defense claim, he had no duty to retreat from his home. We are not persuaded. In Griffith, the Supreme Court announced that “a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final.” Griffith, 479 U.S. at 328, 107 S. Ct. at 708. A reading of that sentence alone would seem to indicate that Trice does have a claim for federal habeas relief. However, there is an explicit limitation to Griffith’s holding—it only applies to new federal constitutional rules. Specifically, Griffith was concerned with whether Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106, S. Ct. 1712 (1986), should apply to “litigation pending on direct state or federal review or not yet final when Batson was decided.” Griffith, 479 U.S. at 17 Case: 17-14476 Date Filed: 03/13/2019 Page: 18 of 26 316, 107 S. Ct. at 709. Thus, it dealt with a change to constitutionally mandated procedures, not a change to state substantive law. In fact, the Court ultimately held that the “failure to apply a newly declared constitutional rule to criminal cases pending on direct review violates basic norms of constitutional adjudication.” Id. at 322, 107 S. Ct. at 713 (emphasis added). We therefore conclude that, while Griffith requires retroactive application of new constitutional rules of criminal procedure to cases pending on direct appeal, it does not require retroactive application of new state substantive law to non-final state convictions. See id. And in Weiand, the Florida Supreme Court only announced a change in state criminal law—broadening the castle doctrine defense under Florida law. Weiand, 732 So. 2d at 1048. Because Griffith does not extend to such state law changes, the case has no application here. Instead, the legal basis for Trice’s contention that Weiand applied to his case rests entirely on Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court, persuaded by the principles underlying Griffith, has held that its decision that announcing a new rule of state law in criminal cases must be given retroactive application by Florida courts in every case pending on direct review or not yet final, provided the defendant timely objected at trial to preserve the issue for appellate review. Smith v. State, 598 So. 2d 1063, 1066 (Fla. 1992). This holding, however, was based solely on the Florida constitution, not federal law and not Griffith. Id. at 1066 n.4 18 Case: 17-14476 Date Filed: 03/13/2019 Page: 19 of 26 (“Although we cite to some federal decisions, we explicitly decide this case on state constitutional grounds.”). Consistent with Smith, the Weiand decision itself directs that it should apply to all other non-final Florida cases and does so without citing to any federal law. See Weiand, 732 So. 2d at 1058. Because the retroactive application of Weiand is controlled entirely by Florida state law, not Griffith, we conclude that Trice’s contention that the state post-conviction court unreasonably applied Griffith in denying his claim is meritless. The state court could not have unreasonably applied Griffith because that case is simply not applicable.