New v. State

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court held that its decision in State v. Hudson, which clarified that habitual violent felony offender sentencing and mandatory minimum terms were discretionary, did not apply retroactively under the Witt standard. The court therefore approved the First District Court of Appeal's denial of Paul New's postconviction motion as untimely. Two justices dissented, concluding that fundamental fairness and due process required retroactive application of Hudson.

Holdings

1. State v. Hudson does not apply retroactively to New's sentence because it was not constitutional in nature and did not represent a development of fundamental significance under the Witt retroactivity test.

Questions Presented

1. Whether State v. Hudson applied retroactively to permit New to challenge his habitual violent felony sentence in a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion.
2. Whether Hudson constituted a constitutional decision and a development of fundamental significance under Witt v. State such that it could overcome the applicable time bar.

Disposition

approved