DANIEL A. GARCIA, 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.
Daniel Garcia appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct his sentence, arguing that his resentencing violated Apprendi and Blakely because the trial court enhanced his sentence based on judicial findings rather than jury verdicts. The Fourth District affirmed, holding that Blakely does not apply retroactively to convictions that became final before the Blakely decision.
The trial court did not err in summarily denying Garcia's motion because Blakely does not apply retroactively to convictions that became final before the Blakely decision, even though resentencing occurred afterward.
[1] Apprendi and Blakely do not apply retroactively to convictions that were final before those decisions were rendered.
[2] A resentencing proceeding does not render a conviction non-final for purposes of applying Apprendi and Blakely.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Blakely has been held not to apply retroactively.”
Establishes the court's holding that the Blakely decision does not apply retroactively to convictions that became final before Blakely was decided.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarcia was convicted of second degree murder with a firearm in September 1997 and sentenced to thirty years with a three-year mandatory minimum. His c…
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
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Garcia appeals a final order.of the Palm Beach County Circuit Court summarily denying his motion to correct or modify sentence. We affirm.
Garcia was convicted of second degree murder with a firearm in September 1997 and was sentenced to thirty years in prison with a three-year mandatory minimum. He appealed to this court, which affirmed with the mandate issuing October 1998. He filed a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentencing error in 2000, resulting in his resentencing in November 2000 to 260 months due to h Heggs1 violation. He then challenged his new sentence on the ground that it was imposed in his absence. He advises that the trial court resentenced him once more in December 2004 to twenty-one years in prison.
In June 2005, Garcia filed this rule 3.800(a) motion to correct or modify his sentence, alleging, this time, that his re-sentencing was illegal because his sentence was enhanced based on findings made by the trial court. In particular, he alleges that his guidelines sentence topped out at thirteen years. He cites for support Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), holding that a departure sentence imposed by the trial court based on a fact found by the judge by a preponderance of the evidence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The trial court did not err in summarily denying Garcia’s motion. Blakely has been held not to apply retroactively. See Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Although Garcia was resentenced under Heggs, and post-Blakely, his conviction became final in 1998, long before both Apprendi and Blakely. 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-Ap-prendi.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, C.J., GUNTHER and MAY, JJ., concur. . Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barron v. State, 931 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…[*930] LaROSE, Judge. Affirmed. See Carter v. State, 920 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Cornet v. State, 915 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Hamilton v. State, 914 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Garcia v. State, 914 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Thomas v. State, 914 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Galindez v. State, 910 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). We certify conflict with Isaac v. State, 911 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.…
-
Maynor E. Monnar v. State, 939 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…(holding Apprendi did not apply to convictions rendered prior to its issuance notwithstanding future resen-tencing proceedings post-Blakely, and certifying conflict with Isaac), review pending, SC05-1341 (Fla. filed July 29, 2005); Garcia v. State, 914 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (certifying conflict with Isaac); Langford v. State, 929 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (certifying conflict with Isaac). Furthermore, even though appellant was resentenced prior to Blakely, the holding of Blakely applies to appe…
-
Morrow v. State, 972 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…nstant case did not become final until December 21, 2000, when mandate issued. Blakely likewise applies to the appellant because Blakely was a clarification of Apprendi See Isaac v. State, 911 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). But see Garcia v. State, 914 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)(certifying conflict with Isaac); Thomas v. State, 914 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)(same); Galindez v. State, 910 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)(same). Thus, the appellant’s maximum sentence is limited to the length “a judge may i…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Lemuel E. Isaac v. State, 911 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- McBRIDE v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Galindez v. State, 910 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Westerheide v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)