either as a repeal or as an amendment of such pre-existing statute, in so far as offenses are concerned that have been already committed prior to the taking effect of such repealing or amending law. See also Norman v. State, 826 So.2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Although procedural changes in criminal law may escape the reach of article X, section 9, see Lee v. State, 128 Fla. 319, 174 So. 589 (1937), a substantive change in a statute may be applied only prospectively. Here, the legislative enactment made a substantive change in section 776.012, eliminating any duty to retreat under certain enumerated circumstances, which include the circumstances in this case. Thus, it would violate the constitutional provision to apply it retrospectively. See, e.g., Norman v. State, 826 So.2d 440 (<HOLDING>). Smiley argues that the statute is remedial,
holding statutes are not applied retroactively absent clear legislative intent holding similar statutory amendment was retrospective when applied to inmate who committed his crime before amendments enactment holding that floridas current statutory scheme that provides defendants with a choice of either electrocution or lethal injection as the method of execution is constitutional and could be retroactively applied to criminal defendants sentenced prior to the statutes enactment holding that a change of an element of an offense could not be applied retroactively to a crime committed prior to the statutes enactment holding that a domestic relationship must exist as part of the facts giving rise to the predicate offense but it need not be an element of the prior offense