Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

534 So. 2d 1144

534 So.2d 1144

13 Fla.L.Weekly 671

State v. Hall

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided November 17, 1988

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1988-11-17

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“On September 1, 1988, this Court, on rehearing, withdrew its opinion in Bass and substituted a new opinion in lieu thereof. We maintained our position that Bass was entitled to relief but did so only on the basis that Palmer should be deemed to have retroactive application. That portion of our original opinion placing in doubt lower court constructions of sentencing statutes until approved or overruled by the Supreme Court which puzzled the First District Court of Appeal in Hall is not contained in our new opinion. Therefore, the determination of whether Whitehead has retroactive application should be decided upon traditional principles pertaining to changes in decisional law.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 835 So. 2d 248 - State v. Klayman

Relies on Bass v. State · 511 So. 2d 1038 - Hall v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-11-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 561 So. 2d 554 - Pope v. State (1990), State v. Callaway (1995)

39 state decisions

2001988199020002010decided

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 →

GRIMES, Justice.

¶1Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(5) of the Florida Constitution, we review Hall v. State, 511 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified to us the following question as an issue of great public importance:

IS APPELLANT PERMITTED TO COLLATERALLY ATTACK THE LEGALITY OF HIS GUIDELINES DEPARTURE SENTENCE BY RULE 3.850 MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF ON THE BASIS THAT THE SOLE REASON FOR DEPARTURE, HIS STATUS AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER, ALTHOUGH VALID UNDER A LOWER APPELLATE COURT DECISION AT THE TIME IMPOSED, IS INVALID UNDER A SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED SUPREME COURT DECISION ENUNCIATING A DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE SENTENCING STATUTES AND SENTENCING GUIDELINES RULE?

¶2Id. at 1044.

¶3In McCuiston v. State, 534 So.2d 1144 (Fla.1988), issued contemporaneously herewith, we disapproved the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in Hall, predicated as it was on the rationale of our original opinion in Bass v. State, 12 F.L.W. 289 (Fla. June 11, 1987), which was withdrawn on rehearing, 530 So.2d 282 (Fla.1988). Therefore, we answer the certified question in the negative and quash the opinion below.

¶4It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, SHAW, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
/534/so2d/1144 · .json · Public domain