From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Sep 11, 1997
700 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1997)

Opinion

No. 90,049.

September 11, 1997.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance Second District — Case No. 95-00448 (Hillsborough County).

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Law, and Deborah F. Hogge, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Respondent.


We have for review Hill v. State, 696 So.2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), wherein the court certified:

On what date was the Coney decision "announced"?[]

In Coney v. State, 653 So.2d 1009, 1013 (Fla.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 315 (1995), this Court held that "[t]he defendant has a right to be physically present at the immediate site where pretrial jury challenges are exercised."

In Coney v. State, 653 So.2d 1009, 1013 (Fla.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 315 (1995), this Court held that "[t]he defendant has a right to be physically present at the immediate site where pretrial jury challenges are exercised."

Id. at 798-99 (quotation marks added). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

We recently answered the above question in Henderson v. State, 22 Fla. Law Weekly S384 (Fla. June 26, 1997), wherein we held thatConey became final when the time for rehearing in that case had run. Because the trial in the present case preceded that date, Hill cannot reap the benefits of Coney. We approve the result in Hill on this issue.

We noted in Coney: "Our ruling today clarifying this issue is prospective only." Id. at 1013.

Because Coney is inapplicable to this case, the district court's second certified question is moot:
If a Coney issue is not preserved at trial, must a prisoner file a postconviction motion alleging under oath that he or she would not have exercised peremptory challenges in the same manner as his or her attorney?
Hill v. State, 696 So.2d at 799.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hill v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
Sep 11, 1997
700 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1997)
Case details for

Hill v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOHNNIE E. HILL, PETITIONER, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Sep 11, 1997

Citations

700 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1997)

Citing Cases

State v. Ellis

I concur in the result only for the reasons stated in my concurrence in Carmichael v. State, No. 90,811 (Fla.…

State v. Darden

I concur in the result only for the reasons stated in my concurrence in Carmichael v. State, 23 Fla. L.…