FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, ET AL.

v.

LAMBERT ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2005)
  …that Apprendi does not apply retroactively. See McCoy v. United States, 266 F. 3d 1245, 1255-56 (11th Cir.2001) (deciding the retroactivity issue first because “if Apprendi does not apply retroactively, this alone resolves the case”), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 906, 122 S.Ct. 2362, 153 L.Ed.2d 183 (2002). Therefore, we answer the certified question in the negative, approve the decision, and approve the opinion below to the extent that it holds Apprendi does not apply retroactively. It is so ordered. WELLS, Q…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Windom v. State, 886 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2004)
  …y Teague before considering the merits of the claim”); McCoy v. United States, 266 F. 3d 1245, 1255 (11th Cir.2001) (noting that "judicial economy counsels that we determine first whether the Apprendi rule even applies retroactively"), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 906, 122 S.Ct. 2362, 153 L.Ed.2d 183 (2002); United States v. Walls, 215 F. Supp. 2d 159, 162 n. 3 (D.D.C.2002) (noting that "Apprendi’s retroactivity is a 'threshold question’ that must be determined before reaching the merits of Walls's claim,” and ci…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Penney v. Sec'y, Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla., 707 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2013)
  …. 3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir.1998). We construe these issues in the COA, however, to include procedural questions that “must be resolved” before we can reach the merits. McCoy v. United States, 266 F. 3d 1245, 1248 n. 2 (11th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 906, 122 S.Ct. 2362, 153 L.Ed.2d 183 (2002). These procedural questions need not have been argued before or considered by the district court, because we can affirm the district court’s ruling on any ground supported by the record, even those the distri…