State v. Isaac

66 So. 3d 912, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 267, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1342, 2011 WL 2373725
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 16, 2011·No. No. SC05-2047·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We previously granted review of Isaac v. State, 911 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), to resolve a certified conflict in the district courts regarding the applicability of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), to re-sentencing proceedings which became final after Apprendi and Blakely issued where the conviction and the original sentence were final before they issued. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.; State v. Isaac, 4 So.3d 677 (Fla.2009) (granting review). We resolved this conflict, however, in State v. Fleming, 61 So.3d 399 (Fla.2011), revised (Fla. Apr. 28, 2011) (granting motion for clarification in part and remanding for harmless error analysis). Accordingly, we have determined to discharge jurisdiction in Isaac and dismiss this review proceeding.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, LABARGA and PERRY, JJ., concur. POLSTON, J., recused.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Isaac, 66 So. 3d 912, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 267, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1342, 2011 WL 2373725 (Fla. 2011).

66 So. 3d 912 (State v. Isaac) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ross v. State
88 So. 3d 297 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Dirk v. State
84 So. 3d 203 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)
Boardman v. State
69 So. 3d 367 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)