Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

484 So. 2d 1244

484 So.2d 1244

11 Fla.L.Weekly 117

Docket No. 66730.

State v. Safford

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Sandy SAFFORD, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided March 20, 1986.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1986-03-20

Relies on 457 So. 2d 481 - State v. Neil · 463 So. 2d 378 - Naranja Lakes Condominium No. Two, Inc. v. Rizzo

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-03-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2004

12 state decisions

50198619902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1245 Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Calvin L. Fox and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

¶2Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Henry H. Harnage, Asst. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for respondent.

¶3McDONALD, Justice.

¶4The issue in this case is whether our decision in State v. Neil,457 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1984), is to be applied to cases where the jury was selected prior to Neil, but the cases were not finalized. These have been generally referred to as "pipeline" cases. We find that any person whose case was in the original trial or appellate process and who has followed the procedure specified in Neil to contest the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges is entitled to have Neil applied to that person's case. Our comment that Neil was not to be applied retroactively was intended to forestall the use of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in collateral attacks on final judgments. Neil is not to be applied to those cases where the original trial and appellate processes were completed when Neil became effective; Neil does apply to those cases where the original trial or original appeal had not been so completed.

¶5The opinion of the district court in Safford v. State,463 So.2d 378 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), is approved.

¶6It is so ordered.

¶7BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

/484/so2d/1244 · .json · Public domain