Court Opinion

ID: 9928269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 15:02:50.276268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:14.304628
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                        No. 1D2023-0014
                 _____________________________

KHALID HYAT CHAUDHRY,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.
Shonna Young Gay, Judge.

                       January 31, 2024

PER CURIAM.

    AFFIRMED. See Dettle v. State, 334 So. 3d 346, 346–47 (Fla.
1st DCA 2021), rev. granted, SC22-417, 2022 WL 3656814 (Fla.
Aug. 25, 2022).

B.L. THOMAS and ROWE, JJ., concur; BILBREY, J., concurs with
opinion.
                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

BILBREY, J., concurring.

     At trial on the third amended information, Appellant was
convicted of three counts of unlawful sexual activity “with a person
16 or 17 years of age” by “[a] person 24 years of age or older.”
§ 794.05(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). We affirmed his conviction and
sentence on direct appeal. Chaudhry v. State, 236 So. 3d 1010 (Fla.
1st DCA 2017). Appellant then filed a motion for postconviction
relief under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure,
raising twelve grounds. Almost a year later, Appellant’s new
postconviction counsel filed an amended motion for postconviction
relief raising sixteen grounds. Appellant challenges the denial of
his amended motion for postconviction relief.

     The third amended information alleged identical dates, venue,
acts, and the same victim for all three counts of unlawful sexual
activity. Appellant claims a double jeopardy violation since the
three counts are identical in the third amended information. See
Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297, 1303–04 (Fla. 2018); Amison v. State,
332 So. 3d 593, 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). A double jeopardy
violation is fundamental error that may be raised for the first time
in a postconviction motion. Smith v. State, 741 So. 2d 576, 577
(Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Nonetheless, Appellant is not entitled to
relief.

     In Dettle v. State, 334 So. 3d 346, 346–47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021),
rev. granted, SC22-417, 2022 WL 3656814 (Fla. Aug. 25, 2022), we
held that “Lee does not apply retroactively to cases such as
Appellant’s that were already final when Lee was decided.” In
Dettle we cited State v. Glenn, 558 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990), and Witt v.
State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980), in denying retroactive application
to Lee. The Florida Supreme Court in Glenn had stated, “that only
major constitutional changes of law which constitute a
development of fundamental significance are cognizable under a

                                 2
motion for postconviction relief.” 558 So. 2d at 6. We then granted
Dettle’s motion for certification and certified a question of great
public importance to the Florida Supreme Court. Dettle, 334 So.
3d at 347.

     Here, since Appellant’s direct appeal was final before Lee was
decided, then relying on Dettle, we are correct to conclude that Lee
is not retroactive and to affirm.

                 _____________________________

W. Charles Fletcher of Law Office of W. Charles Fletcher,
Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Zachary F. Lawton,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

                                 3