Thompson v. StateThompson v. State
Paul Thompson appeals an order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion following an evidentiary hearing.1 We affirm.
Thompson pleaded guilty to the felony charge of knowingly driving while his license was suspended or revoked (felony DWLS), a violation of
On appeal, Thompson argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law because Huss did not change the law, but merely recognized the state of the law. He is incorrect. Huss represents a change in the law, but the ruling is not retroactive. See Martin v. State, 809 So.2d 65 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Secondly, he argues that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter its judgment. That argument, as Judge Sharp pointed out in Martin, “clearly lacks merit.” See Martin; See also State v. Phillips, 463 So.2d 1136 (Fla.1985).
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J., SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.