MARC S. THOMAS, 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.
Marc Thomas appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, raising claims of vindictive sentencing and illegal sentencing under Blakely v. Washington. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that Blakely does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the Blakely decision.
The court affirmed the summary denial of both claims. The vindictive sentencing claim failed on its merits, and the Blakely claim failed because Blakely does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before the decision was issued.
[1] A claim of vindictive sentencing may be summarily denied.
[2] The decision in Blakely v. …
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We have held previously that the decision does not apply retroactively.”
Establishes the court's position that Blakely does not apply retroactively to sentences final before the decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarc Thomas filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), raising claims of vindictive senten…
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 Vindictive Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Marc Thomas, appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, as supplemented, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the summary denial of his claim of vindictive sentencing. See Baker v. State, 904 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Benedetto v. State, 895 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), review denied, 888 So. 2d 621 (Fla.2004)).
We also affirm the summary denial of his claim of illegal sentencing under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). We have held previously that the decision does not apply retroactively. See McBride v. State, 884 So .2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see also Paul v. State, 898 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Burrows v. State, 890 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). The Supreme Court of Florida held in Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla.2005), that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), did not apply retroactively. It did not address the retroactivity of Blakely, but, on the authority above, we conclude that there is no retroactivity of this decision either. Appellant’s sentences became final in 2002, pre-Blakely but post-Apprendi. Since his challenge is based on Blakely, and as it is not retroactive, we conclude that the trial court did not err in rejecting this claim. To the extent the majority opinion in Isaac v. State, 911 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), effectively applied Blakely retroactively, we certify conflict and align ourselves with Galindez v. State, 910 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), holding that Ap-prendi and Blakely did not apply retroactively to convictions that became final in 1999, even though resentencing took place in 2003 on a scoresheet error, post-Apprendi.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, C.J., GUNTHER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
State v. Fleming, 61 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2011)…a. 1st DCA 2007) (“Florida courts, including this one, have generally agreed that Blakely has no application to cases that were already final when Blakely was handed down.”), quashed on other grounds, 990 So. 2d 482, 482 (Fla.2008); Thomas v. State, 914 So. 2d 27, 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (concluding on the basis of Hughes that Blakely does not apply retroactively). B. Conflict in the District Courts Despite their agreement regarding the nonretroactivity of Apprendi and Blakely, the district courts differ re…
-
State v. Sirron Johnson, 122 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 2013)…entences were imposed after the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), was issued. The First District’s holding expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Thomas v. State, 914 So. 2d 27, 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons explained below, we hold that Blakely does not apply retroactively to final sentences or resentences. Thus, the decision affords no pathwa…1 / 2
-
Sims v. State, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…ecame final, and the Florida Supreme Court has not held that Lewars applies retroactively. Analysis We find no error with the trial court order. We have previously applied Witt retroactivity analysis1 to Rule 3.800(a) claims. See Thomas v. State, 914 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that Blakely2 did not apply retroactively where defendant filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion, claiming his sentence was illegal under Blakely); see also Cotto v. State, 141 So. 3d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (applying Witt analysi…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2005)
- Lemuel E. Isaac v. State, 911 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- McBRIDE v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Galindez v. State, 910 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Burrows v. State, 890 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Westerheide v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)