RUDOLPH V. ORANGE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2005-04-06
No. 3D05-335
Before CORTINAS and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
898 So. 2d 1185 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2005) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases


Opinion of the Court
CORTINAS, J.

CORTINAS, J.

Rudolph V. Orange appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. Defendant-appellant was sentenced to thirty years in state prison, with a fifteen year minimum mandatory sentence, for drug trafficking.

In this post-conviction motion, the defendant asserts that his sentence is impermissible under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Those decisions are inapplicable to the defendant’s case.

We have held that the decision in Blakely is not retroactive. Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); see McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Likewise, we have held that Apprendi is not retroactive; Modest v. State, 892 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Stokes v. State, 903 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Orange v. State, 898 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA2005).…
  • Cortes v. State, 920 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
    …that “Apprendi does not apply retroactively” to convictions that have become final upon issuance of an appellate court mandate); see also Modest v. State, 892 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that Apprendi is not retroactive); Orange v. State, 898 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“the decision in Blakely is not retroactive”) citing Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), and McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Morrison v. State, 30 Fla.L.Weekly D2259, — So. 2d —, 2005 WL…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw