EMANUEL PAUL, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of a Rule 3.850 motion challenging an upward departure sentence under Blakely/Apprendi principles, holding these rulings do not apply retroactively to cases not on direct review, but certified the retroactivity question as one of great public importance.
Blakely v. Washington and Apprendi v. New Jersey do not apply retroactively to sentences imposed before those decisions were announced.
[1] Blakely v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul pleaded guilty and received an upward departure sentence to life imprisonment based on factual findings that were neither found by a jury beyond …
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 Blakely V. Washington cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order summarily denying Mr. Paul’s rule 3.850 motion challenging his departure sentence as a violation of the principles set forth in Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), reh’g denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 21, 159 L.Ed.2d 851 (2004); and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Upon Mr. Paul’s open plea of guilty, the trial court had entered an upward departure from the maximum guidelines sentence of 17.7 years to life imprisonment, based upon factual findings neither found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt nor admitted in connection with Mr. Paul’s open plea of guilty as charged. The appellant alleges that this violated Blakely. This court and others have held that the holding of these cases is not to be applied retroactively. E.g., McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Matthews v. State, 891 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Burrows v. State, 890 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Compare United States v. Booker, -U.S. --, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (holding that application of these principles to federal sentencing guidelines would apply to all cases on direct review).
However, we certify as a question of great public importance the following: DO THE RULINGS ANNOUNCED IN BLAKELY V. WASHINGTON, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), REH’G DENIED, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 21, 159 L.Ed.2d 851 (2004); AND APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), APPLY RETROACTIVELY?
WARNER, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ.,. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2005)
- McBRIDE v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Burrows v. State, 890 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Jefferson McCLANE, 891 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Matthews v. State, 891 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)