Summary
holding that because Apprendi does not apply retroactively, neither does Blakely
Summary of this case from Galindez v. StateOpinion
No. 3D05-1164.
June 29, 2005. Rehearing Denied July 27, 2005.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Julio Jimenez, Judge.
Irwin Hicks, in proper person.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.
Before RAMIREZ, SUAREZ, and CORTIÑAS, JJ.
Irwin Hicks appeals an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. In this post-conviction motion, the defendant asserts that his sentence is impermissible under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Those decisions are inapplicable to the defendant's case.
We have held that the decision in Blakely is not retroactive. Burgal v. State, 888 So.2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); see McBride v. State, 884 So.2d 476, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Likewise, we have held that Apprendi is not retroactive. Modest v. State, 892 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
Affirmed.