State v. Johnson
122 So. 3d 856
Fla.2013Background
- Defendant Johnson challenges whether Blakely's definition of “statutory maximum” applies to final sentences issued before Blakely.
- The First District held Blakely applies retroactively to pre-Blakely resentencings on collateral review, creating a direct conflict with the Fourth District in Thomas.
- Johnson’s sentence became final in 2000; he was resentenced in 2002; he later sought postconviction relief in 2007 alleging Blakely violation.
- The Florida Supreme Court applies Witt v. State's retroactivity framework to Apprendi/Blakely and the Rule of Law, and determines Blakely announces a new rule, not retroactive.
- The Court quashes the First District and approves Thomas, concluding Blakely does not apply retroactively to final sentences; procedural posture involves direct conflict among districts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Blakely | Johnson argues Blakely applies retroactively. | State argues Blakely is not retroactive. | Blakely not retroactive. |
| New-rule vs clarification | Johnson contends Blakely clarified Apprendi. | State contends Blakely announced a new rule. | Blakely announced a new rule. |
| Resolution of district conflict | Johnson relied on Isaac/Monnar to grant relief. | Thomas forecloses retroactive application. | Court adopts Thomas; quashes Johnson. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (requires jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt for penalty increases over the statutory maximum)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (defines statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes; announces new rule)
- Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1980) (three-part retroactivity analysis for new rules)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (establishes framework for retroactivity of new rules)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (applies Apprendi to capital sentencing; jury findings required)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (retroactivity under Teague for new rules; Ring not retroactive)
- Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837 (Fla. 2005) (Apprendi not retroactive; applies Witt framework)
- Fleming v. State, 61 So.3d 399 (Fla. 2011) (retroactivity of Apprendi/Blakely applied to de novo proceedings)
- Thomas v. State, 914 So.2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (Blakely not retroactive to pre-Blakely final sentences; conflict case)
- Isaac v. State, 911 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (Blakely treated as clarifying Apprendi (disputed in Johnson))
- Monnar v. State, 984 So.2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (Blakely applied to post-Apprendi resentencing)