Document: 538 U.S. 835 BUNKLEYv.FLORIDA. No. 02-8636. Supreme Court of United States. Decided May 27, 2003. Petitioner Bunkley had a pocketknife with 2½ to 3-inch blade in his pocket when he was arrested as left an unoccupied restaurant. He charged first-degree burglary because knife classified "dangerous weapon" under Florida law, convicted, and sentenced life prison. Had the not been so classified, sentence could have no more than five years. His conviction became final 1989. has exempted "common pocketknife" from its weapons statute since 1901, relevant language remained unchanged. In 1997, separate case, interpreted meaning exception for first time, including 3¾-inch within exception. L. B. v. State, 700 So. 2d 370, 373. then moved state postconviction relief, alleging that armed robbery invalid shorter 3¾ inches therefore support involving weapon possession. The Circuit denied motion, State District Appeal affirmed. rejected Bunkley's claim, holding evolutionary refinement law did apply retroactively. Held: erred failing determine whether encompassed at time final. result here is controlled by Fiore White, 531 U. S. 225, which involved Pennsylvania criminal after Fiore's already become Under interpretation, conduct violate element statute. Court's reply this certified question — interpretation merely clarified statute's plain revealed violated due process, cannot convict person without proving each crime beyond reasonable doubt. Application process principles may render retroactivity analysis unnecessary here. requires answer whether, light B., 2½- fit Because decision cast doubt on validity interpreting cover weapon, entitles determination correctly stated it stood convicted. characterized part century-long but decide what stage reached proper purposes just changed, changed. Unless until clarifies exception's content 1989, know violates set forth Fiore. Certiorari granted; 833 739, vacated remanded. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT FLORIDA. PER CURIAM. 1 Clyde Timothy petitions writ certiorari, arguing contradicted 225 (2001) (per curiam), failed Florida's definition "`[w]eapon'" Fla. Stat. § 790.001(13) (2000). We agree, grant motion proceed forma pauperis petition certiorari. 2 * early morning hours April 16, 1986, burglarized closed, Western Sizzlin' Restaurant. Report Recommendation 91-113-CIV-T-99(B) (MD Fla.), p. 1. police him At arrest, discovered "pocketknife, 3 length, ... folded pocket." 768 510 (Fla. App. 2000) curiam). "There evidence indicating ever used during burglary, nor threatened anyone any time." Ibid. degree namely, pocketknife. 810.02(2)(b) punishment "imprisonment term years exceeding imprisonment." 810.02(2). If weapon," would third degree. See 742 2002). Burglary punishable "by imprisonment 5 years." 775.082(3)(d) (2002); see also 2d, 742. convicted imprisonment. appellate court affirmed sentence. 539 477. 4 defines "mea[n] dirk, metallic knuckles, slingshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical or device, other deadly except firearm common pocketknife." 790.001(13). excepted "`common pocketknife'" unchanged time. 743. 373 determined "plainly falls statutory `weapon' found section 790.001(13)." complete issue follows: "In 1951, Attorney General opined four length less `common pocketknife.' appellant carried, blade, clearly fell range." (citation omitted). accordingly "knife pocketknife' intended term." Justice Grimes, joined Wells, wrote opinion agreeing majority's resolution case "[i]n view General's absence definitive description After issued filed relief Rule Criminal Procedure 3.850 (1999). alleged decision, considered "weapon" argued should be can [sic] possession weapon." Pet. Cert. C-2. Florida, Second District, 6 claim. It held only "jurisprudential upheavals" will applied 743 (internal quotation marks upheaval major constitutional change law." Id., 745 By contrast, "evolutionary refinements" "are retroactively." 744. entitled relief. footnote, cited our supra, case. 744, n. 12.* 7 Pariente, Chief Anstead, dissented. She "should collateral relief." 746. criticized majority relying solely question. her view, "application renders unnecessary." 747. noted even if "the offers precedent laying out stages evolution." she thought "correctly final," conviction. II 8 White defendant S., 226. statute, guilty id., 227-228. originally granted certiorari consider "when, Federal Due Process Clause new retroactively cases review." "Because we were uncertain represented law," Court. 228. This asked "`state[d] correct date final.'" When replied ruling "`merely statute,'" ibid., disappeared. Pennsylvania's "simple, inevitable conclusion" process. 229. long established forbids elements doubt." 228-229. later made clear satisfy strictures Clause. Consequently, "retroactivity [was] issue." 9 controls As Pariente dissent, Fiore" "unnecessary." one retroactivity. Rather, holds, issue" "a statement [Bunkley's] final." 790.001(13)'s 10 Although refinement" exception, answered 1989 defined might "culminat[ed] [the] process," remains about meant 745. And "stages" "evolution" sufficiently progressed still raises open 11 true inapplicable process." dissent acknowledges, however, post, 843, 1, For covered possessed offense. face such doubt, Ordinarily, constitutes rather clarification sufficient dispose occurred, thereby likewise signaled narrower 12 Here, said more. "century-long evolution over course these many years, do never "evolved" extent question; instead, appeared assume labeling "culmination" process" resolve not. Without further 13 On remand, judgment accordingly, vacated, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 14 ordered. Notes: claims need anything whetherL. law. 845 (citing Crim. Proc. 3.850(b)(2) (2000)). Yet concedes, passed upon inquiry well notes raised prior appeals. These appeals, agree absent able pursue claim now. committed error addressing means guilty. Therefore, Michigan Long, 463 1032 (1983), applicability 15 CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, whom KENNEDY THOMAS join, dissenting. 16 makes does briefing argument. 528 23, 29 (1999), judicially announced realized granting knew there all. asking Commonwealth Scarpone, 535 Pa. 273, 279, 634 A. 1109, 1112 (1993), defendant's change, acknowledged us answer. 226 17 present concedes concluded 370 (1997) decided petitioner's final, marked (2002).1 retroactively, be. 18 recognizes, must, Ante, 841 ("It [that] law"). criticizes thinking conclusion "sufficient question." acknowledges "[o]rdinarily, question," holds that, "characterized `century-long process,'" additional question: 841. 19 thing. occurred and, finding none had, ended inquiry. goes much further. neither existence changed retroactive effect. nonetheless insists reevaluate sufficiency ante, 840, 842 (holding must "Bunkley's [Fla. Stat.] final"). announces matter "Fiore" explaining why it. one, criticism anticipate unjustified.2 Court, moreover, essentially now remands.3 20 expand new, unjustifiably interferes States' interest finality. courts several times asks them direct appeal, petitioner specifically pocketknife," 1951 letter issue. Brief Appellant 88-1376 Dist. Ct. App.), pp. 5-6. two motions challenging respect jury's dangerous weapon. Motion Set Aside Vacate Judgment Sentence 86-1070-CF-A-N1 Cir. Ct.), 4; Petition Invoke "All Writs" Jurisdiction 85-778 Sup. 4.4 21 2-year period limitations filing "provides two-year limitation where `a fundamental right asserted provided herein retroactively.'" 510, 511 curiam) (quoting overrides Rule, authorizing 22 expanding striking, adopt summarily so. I deny presents strong arguments favor bright-line rule inL. existed 6. But otherwise, revisit workmanship review. Thus, while recognizes court's thatL. conviction, reprimands reach manner. See, e. g., ("Without [petitioner] convicted"). rebuke well-established "require reconsider clarify grounds their decisions." 1032, 1040 (1983); 1041 (noting desire "avoi[d] unsatisfactory intrusive practice requiring decisions satisfaction Court"). explained "[a]lthough some courts" toL. "may contrary nevertheless sought comply legislative intent harmony point explained, "none convictions imposed pursuant Clause." unsuccessfully twice 5; Memorandum Law Support Writ Habeas Corpus C. Section 2254 96-405-Civ.-T-24C

Category: 3