Background
Jerome Lamar Smith, proceeding without counsel, appealed from the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appeal arose from lower-tribunal case number F96-26739B.
The Third District’s brief opinion does not describe Smith’s sentence, the relief he requested, or the circuit court’s reasoning. Its citation to controlling precedent indicates that the appeal concerned whether the constitutional rule announced in Blakely v. Washington applies retroactively.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s ruling in a per curiam opinion.
The court relied on State v. Johnson, 122 So. 3d 856, 866 (Fla. 2013), which held that the new constitutional rule announced in Blakely does not apply retroactively to sentences or resentences that were final when Blakely was issued.
Key Takeaways
- Blakely does not apply retroactively to sentences or resentences that were already final when that decision issued.
- The Third District affirmed without providing additional factual or legal analysis.
- The decision was issued per curiam by a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Gordo, Bokor, and Gooden.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Florida Supreme Court precedent foreclosing reliance on Blakely to obtain postconviction relief from a sentence that was final before Blakely was decided. It also illustrates that the Third District may summarily affirm such claims by citing the controlling retroactivity rule.