State v. Isaac

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Isaac

66 So. 3d 912, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 267, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1342, 2011 WL 2373725

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 2011

DocketNo. SC05-2047

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 66 So. 3d 912 (State v. Isaac) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 So. 3d 912, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 267, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1342, 2011 WL 2373725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-isaac-fla-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack