PAUL J. BURROWS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Paul Burrows appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), arguing that his 1995 guidelines departure sentence violated Apprendi and Blakely. The court affirmed, holding that neither Apprendi nor Blakely apply retroactively to sentences that became final before those decisions were issued.
Neither Apprendi nor Blakely apply retroactively on collateral review to sentences that became final before the issuance of those opinions. Since Burrows' sentences became final in 1996, the 2000 Apprendi and 2004 Blakely decisions do not apply to his case.
[1] Blakely v. …
[2] A sentence enhancement based on judicial findings of fact does not violate Apprendi v. …
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Apprendi does not apply retroactively to sentences that were final prior to its issuance.”
Establishes that the foundational rule that Apprendi has no retroactive application to final sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1995, a jury convicted Burrows of kidnapping and attempted sexual battery. He was sentenced to life in prison for kidnapping as a guidelines upward…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Apprendi V. New Jersey Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Paul Burrows appeals the denial of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). For the reasons expressed below, we affirm.
In 1995, a jury found Burrows guilty of two criminal offenses, kidnapping and attempted sexual battery. On the kidnapping charge, he was sentenced to a guidelines upward departure sentence of life in prison. On the attempted sexual battery charge, he was sentenced to a concurrent term of five years in prison. Burrows appealed the judgment and sentences, and this court affirmed without opinion. See Burrows v. State, 677 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (table decision).
In 2004, Burrows filed a rule 3.800(a) motion asserting that his guidelines departure sentence was illegal under the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Burrows contends that the written reason justifying departure from the sentencing guidelines was only determined by the sentencing court without a jury by a preponderance of the evidence and was not found to exist beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. APPRENDI NOT RETROACTIVE
This court in Gisi v. State, 848 So. 2d 1278, 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), stated in dicta that “Apprendi does not apply retroactively to sentences that were final prior to its issuance.” All of our sister courts have come to the same conclusion. See Enoch v. State, 873 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Figarola v. State, 841 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Brown v. State, 829 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), cert. denied sub nom. Brown v. Florida, 537 U.S. 1196, 123 S.Ct. 1263, 154 L.Ed.2d 1033 (2003); Hughes v. State, 826 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), review granted, 837 So. 2d 410 (Fla.2003).
BLAKELY NOT RETROACTIVE
On the same day that the United States Supreme Court issued the Blakely opinion, the Court also released its opinion in Schriro v. Summerlin, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004). Schriro held that Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), which extended the application of Apprendi to death penalty cases, was not to be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review.
The Eleventh Circuit, in its opinion in In re Dean, 375 F. 3d 1287 (11th Cir.2004), relied on Schriro to conclude that the Supreme Court has not made Blakely retroactive to cases on collateral review. Recently the Fourth District, in McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), held that, like Apprendi, “Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.” We agree.
CONCLUSION
Since Burrows did not seek further appellate review of this court’s affirmance on direct appeal, his sentences became final upon the issuance of this court’s mandate in 1996. See Broum v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of Burrows’ rule 3.800(a) motion because neither Apprendi (issued in 2000) nor Blakely (issued in 2004) are to be retroactively applied on collateral review to sentences that became final before the issuance of those opinions.
Affirmed.
KELLY and VILLANTI, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007)…umably, neither does its offspring, Blakely. See, e.g., Hicks v. State, 905 So. 2d 990, 991 (Fla. 3d DCA) (holding that because Apprendi does not apply retroactively, neither does Blakely), review denied, 917 So. 2d 193 (Fla.2005); Burrows v. State, 890 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (same), review denied, 914 So. 2d 952 (Fla.2005); McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (same). Nevertheless, we have traditionally held that “resentencing should proceed de novo on all issues bearing on the proper…
-
Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2005)…f, and the district court affirmed. Hughes, 826 So. 2d at 1074-75. The First District Court of Appeal held, among other things, that Apprendi does not apply retroactively. Id. Since then, each of the district courts has agreed. See Burrows v. State, 890 So. 2d 286, 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Enoch v. State, 873 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Figarola v. State, 841 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), notice invoking discretionary review filed, No. SC03-586 (Fla. Apr. 7, 2003); Brown v. State, 829 So. 2d 286, 28…
-
Behl v. State, 898 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…4.01 l(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997). . See § 794.01 l(8)(b). . See § 775.21(5), Fla. Stat. (1997). .See §§ 921.0001-0016, Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703. . Cases on collateral review are, of course, a different matter. In Burrows v. State, 890 So. 2d 286, 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), we held that Blakely is not "to be retroactively applied on collateral review to sentences that became final before” Blakely was decided. See also Schriro, 124 S.Ct. at 2526 (holding that rule announced in Ring v. Arizona, 5…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004)
- Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- McBRIDE v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Gisi v. State, 848 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Richardson v. State, 826 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Hughes v. State, 826 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- In re Will C. Dean, Jr., 375 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2004)