BURGESS

v.

ALABAMA

Citator

Cited By

• Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2005)
  …ection); Curtis v. United States, 294 F. 3d 841, 843 (7th Cir.) (noting that “Apprendi is about nothing but procedure — who decides a given question (judge versus jury) and under what standard (preponderance versus reasonable doubt)”), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 976, 123 S.Ct. 451, 154 L.Ed.2d 334 (2002). The Court affirmed this understanding in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 605, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), which applied Apprendi to death penalty cases, when it characterized Apprendi as determini…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Windom v. State, 886 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2004)
  …ts statutory maximum. Several federal and Florida appellate courts have concluded that Apprendi’s holding constituted a new procedural rule that did not apply retroactively.32 In Curtis v. United States, 294 F. 3d 841, 843 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 976, 123 S.Ct. 451, 154 L.Ed.2d 334 (2002), for example, the court noted that “Apprendi is about nothing but procedure — who decides a given question (judge versus jury) and under what standard (preponderance versus reasonable doubt).” In Figarola v. St…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Drewery Geter v. State, 115 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
  …ed States, 294 F. 3d 841, 843 (7th Cir.) (noting that “Apprendi is about nothing but procedure-who decides a given question (judge versus jury) and under what standard (preponderance versus reasonable doubt)”), cert. denied, Curtis v. United States, 537 U.S. 976, 123 S.Ct. 451, 154 L.Ed.2d 334 (2002). The Court affirmed this understanding in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 605, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), which applied Apprendi to death penalty cases, when it characterized Apprendi as determining…