State v. Fleming
61 So. 3d 399
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Conviction and sentence final in 1997 for aggravated battery, shooting in a dwelling, and false imprisonment; original upward departure sentences included four bases.
- Postconviction relief vacated the final sentence and remanded for resentencing in 2003 with new scores and departures.
- 2003 resentencing was not final when Apprendi and Blakely issued; First District held Apprendi/Blakely applicable to Fleming’s de novo resentencing.
- Apprendi/Blakely apply to de novo resentencings held after those decisions, even if the original conviction/sentence were final before them.
- The First District’s decision conflicted with other districts that refused to apply Apprendi/Blakely retroactively to preexisting final convictions; conflict certification occurred.
- The Court resolves the conflict by holding that resentencing is de novo and that decisional law at the time of resentencing (or before final appeal) applies, so Apprendi/Blakely apply to Fleming’s de novo resentencing; remand for harmless error analysis under Galindez
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Apprendi/Blakely retroactively apply to final convictions in resentence proceedings | Fleming: Apprendi/Blakely apply because resentencing is de novo | State: retroactivity should be limited by Witt analysis; retroactivity not required | Apprendi/Blakely apply to de novo resentencing not final when issued |
| Whether resentencing is de novo and subject to new evidence and due-process protections | Fleming: de novo; new evidence permissible | State: limited to preexisting record | Resentencing is de novo with full due-process protections; new evidence may be presented |
| Whether the decisional law in effect at the time of resentencing applies | Fleming: applicable law is Apprendi/Blakely | State: applicable law depends on finality timing | Decisional law at time of resentencing or before final appeal applies |
| Whether the case should remand for harmless-error analysis under Galindez | Fleming: apply Apprendi/Blakely; harmless-error review needed | State: not necessary to remand for harmless error | Remand for harmless-error analysis under Galindez required |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (jury-determined facts required beyond a reasonable doubt for enhanced sentence)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (guidelines departures depend on facts found by judge; must be jury-found facts for enhanced sentences)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1987) (new rules apply to cases pending on direct review or not yet final)
- Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1992) (state rule: new Florida rule applies to pending/nonfinal cases)
- Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837 (Fla. 2005) (Apprendi not retroactive in Florida postconviction context)
- Parker v. State, 873 So.2d 270 (Fla. 2004) (new penalty phase proceedings can apply later-decided law)
- Isaac v. State, 911 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (Apprendi applies to resentencing post-Apprendi; conflict with Galindez noted)
- Galindez v. State, 910 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (held Apprendi/Blakely do not apply to pre-apparently final convictions in pending resentencing; conflict resolved by Florida Supreme Court)