SHAW, J.
We have for review Hill v. State, 696 So.2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), wherein the court certified:
On what date was the
Coney decision "announced"?[
]
Id. at 798-99 (quotation marks added). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We recently answered the above question in Henderson v. State, 22 Fla. Law Weekly S384 (Fla. June 26, 1997), wherein we held thatConey became final when the time for rehearing in that case had run. Because the trial in the present case preceded that date, Hill cannot reap the benefits of Coney. We approve the result in Hill on this issue.
We noted in Coney: "Our ruling today clarifying this issue is prospective only." Id. at 1013.
Because Coney is inapplicable to this case, the district court's second certified question is moot:
If a Coney issue is not preserved at trial, must a prisoner file a postconviction motion alleging under oath that he or she would not have exercised peremptory challenges in the same manner as his or her attorney?
Hill v. State, 696 So.2d at 799.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.