JULIO ACOSTA
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Constitutional rules announced in Apprendi and Blakely do not apply retroactively to sentences that were final when those decisions issued, and claims of error under those decisions are subject to harmless error analysis.
[1] New constitutional rules of criminal procedure announced in Apprendi and Blakely do not apply retroactively to sentences or resentences that were final when those decisio…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the new constitutional rule announced in Blakely does not apply retroactively to sentences or resentences that were final when it issued”
Ford v. State, 402 So. 3d 973, 981 (Fla. 2025)
Julio Acosta appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The appeal involved questions regarding the retroactive application of …
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 Harmless Error Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 18, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-2218 Lower Tribunal No. F09-22970 ________________
Julio Acosta, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces, Judge.
Julio Acosta, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Llanes Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Ford v. State, 402 So. 3d 973, 981 (Fla. 2025) (“Erlinger was a direct-appeal case—not a postconviction case like Ford’s—and it involved required jury findings regarding an element. Based on these fundamental distinctions, it is clear that Erlinger provides no support for vacating Ford’s death sentences.”); State v. Johnson, 122 So. 3d 856, 866 (Fla. 2013) (analyzing the relevant test for applying a constitutional rule retroactively and concluding that “the new constitutional rule announced in Blakely does not apply retroactively to sentences or resentences that were final when it issued”); Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837, 848 (Fla. 2005) (concluding Apprendi does not apply retroactively); Figarola v. State, 841 So. 2d 576, 577 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“Apprendi was characterized as a procedural rule by the Supreme Court. Since announcing Teague, the Supreme Court has not given retroactive effect to any decisions announcing new constitutional rules of criminal procedure.” (internal citation omitted)); Luton v. State, 934 So. 2d 7, 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“To raise the issue timely, and thus preserve the point for appellate review, the defendant needed to request a jury trial on sentencing, or object to the trial judge sitting as the trier of fact, prior to the sentencing hearing.”); see also Theophile v. State, 967 So. 2d 948, 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“Relief under rule 3.800(a) is precluded where an evidentiary determination is required. For this reason,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2005)
- State v. Sirron Johnson, 122 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 2013)
- Luton v. State, 934 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Ford v. State, 402 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 2025)
- Theophile v. State, 967 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)