IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
JOHN EMANUEL OSEI, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D16-5828
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed September 20, 2017.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Linda F. McCallum, Judge.
Caleb D. Rowland and William M. Blume of Blume and Rowland, PLLC,
Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of possession of firearm by a convicted felon and
aggravated assault and was sentenced to a total of 35 years in prison with
consecutive mandatory minimum terms under the 10-20-Life statute. Appellant
did not challenge his sentences on direct appeal, case number 1D13-3414, and they
became final on June 10, 2014, when the mandate issued that case.
In May 2016, Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief under
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in which he argued that he was entitled
to a new sentencing hearing because contrary to the trial court’s belief that it was
required to impose the mandatory minimum terms consecutively, the Florida
Supreme Court held in Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989, 993 (Fla. 2016), that
consecutive mandatory minimum terms are “permissible but not mandatory” where
multiple firearm offenses are committed contemporaneously and multiple victims
are shot at. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Williams does not
apply retroactively. We agree with the trial court.
In Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980), the Florida Supreme Court held
that a change in the law does not apply retroactively "unless the change: (a)
emanates from [the Florida Supreme Court] or the United States Supreme Court,
(b) is constitutional in nature, and (c) constitutes a development of fundamental
significance.” A decision must satisfy all three of these prongs before it can be
applied retroactively to a case that was already final.
Williams satisfies the first prong of Witt because it was decided by the
Florida Supreme Court. But, Williams does not satisfy the second prong of Witt
because it only involved an issue of statutory interpretation, see Williams, 186 So.
2
2d at 991-95, and was not “constitutional in nature.” Accordingly, Williams does
not apply retroactively to cases such as Appellant’s that were final when Williams
was decided.
For these reasons, we affirm the order denying Appellant’s motion for
postconviction relief.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
3