Whether the state's admission of inadequate Miranda warnings under Roberts v. State constitutes a retroactive application of the law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FoR REVIEW 4.) At STATE 0F FLORIDA v. WEISS, 935 So. 2d 110; 12 (Fla a pea 2006 ) it stakes “As the state concedes, the warnings were inadequate Under Aoberts v. State, 874 So, 2d \225 (Fla. A™ nea 2004 7, TRV. denied seb. nom. Stabe v West, 892 Se. Zd 1014 (Fila. 20059 whieh means } " the State admits +o Broward CountyS unlawful warnings and through SO, * put this under the name Roberts v. State. Fucther, in abbreviation; i+ speaks of 2 review denial for dhe State undec aha same name y by which they include State v West, 892 So. 2d tort ; ( Fla. 2005), but, through addcess, they are actually speaking of 3 poind He that the Supreme Court of Florida “ordered phat the petitions For raview are denied ° ter the State under samz address, but named State oF Florida vs. West , President, Roberts together . What is +his stipulating otherwise than beng a collateral and ratroach ve soning WKe Miranda v Ari zang et.al, for thad Hime pected ? Cae Hat f stipulate State vs. Wesd, Presiden S and not the sacletida of "h! 2.) Ad STATE OF FLORIDA v. WEISS, 935 So, zd 110) 15 CRA 4 DCA 2008) it stipvlabs aber “tha defendant Weiss “filed a ponewed mebion to suppress, CHting “our!” ce recent decision” (Same time) “Sn Roberts v. State, 7+ So. 2d 1225, 1226 CFI2 4% cA zx) Based on Rebarts ° the 4eral couct granted the defendant renewed motion to suppress statement and vacated its previous ecder .” Wasnt that 9 Retroactsve GRANT due to the same time Mego! Broward County form ? 8) What conflicks 46 the Patitioners Findings /Nawiy Discevered Evidence. ?? LEGAL PAPER