State v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 25 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. SC09–1570.,SC09–1570. |
| Citation | 122 So.3d 856 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Sirron JOHNSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Pamela Jo Bondi, State Attorney, Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, Christine Ann Guard, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.
Henry Gerome Gyden, of Haas, Lewis, Difiore, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Respondent.
In this case, we consider whether the definition of the term “statutory maximum” announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), applies to final criminal sentences imposed before the decision in Blakely issued. In Johnson v. State, 18 So.3d 623, 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), the First District Court of Appeal held that Blakely's new definition applies retroactively to cases on collateral review in which sentences were imposed after the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), was issued. The First District's holding expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Thomas v. State, 914 So.2d 27, 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction. Seeart. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons explained below, we hold that Blakely does not apply retroactively to final sentences or resentences. Thus, the decision affords no pathway to postconviction relief regarding any sentence that was final before Blakely issued.
After trial by jury, Sirron Johnson was convicted for the 1995 armed kidnapping, armed sexual battery, and armed robbery of victim C.R. Johnson v. State, 717 So.2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). “[T]he permitted sentencing range on his guidelines scoresheet was 9.6 to 16 years' imprisonment,” but the trial court sentenced him to concurrent, upward departure sentences of forty-eight years on each count. Johnson, 18 So.3d at 624. His sentence became final in October 2000, after Apprendi issued in June 2000. See Johnson v. State, 761 So.2d 318 (Fla.) (), cert. denied,531 U.S. 889, 121 S.Ct. 212, 148 L.Ed.2d 149 (2000). Then, in December 2000, Johnson filed a postconviction motion to correct illegal sentence, alleging that his departure sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. The trial court granted the motion and, two years before Blakely issued, resentenced Johnson to concurrent terms of forty years on two counts and reimposed the forty-eight year sentence for the armed robbery. See Johnson, 18 So.3d at 624. In June 2007, Johnson filed a motion alleging that the upward departure sentences imposed at his June 2002 resentencing exceeded the statutory maximum as defined by Apprendi and Blakely. The trial court denied the motion, and Johnson appealed.
On review, the First District relied on its prior decisions in Isaac v. State, 911 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), review dismissed,66 So.3d 912 (2011), cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1539, 182 L.Ed.2d 161 (2012), and Monnar v. State, 984 So.2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), to hold that Blakely applied to Johnson's pre-Blakely resentencing. Johnson, 18 So.3d at 624–25. In Isaac, the district court reasoned that Blakely merely “clarified” Apprendi; thus, Blakely applied to Isaac's de novo, pre-Blakely resentencing. 911 So.2d at 814–15. Three years later, the First District reiterated that the governing rule in the First District was that Blakely applied “to any resentencing that took place after Apprendi came down, even resentencings taking place before Blakely was decided.” Monnar, 984 So.2d at 619. Accordingly, in Johnson, the First District reasoned and held as follows:
Here the appellant was resentenced after Apprendi was decided but before Blakely came down. Thus, pursuant to Isaac, the dictates of Apprendi and Blakely apply to appellant's sentences.
The trial court held that even if Apprendi applies, the sentences imposed did not violate Apprendi because they were not above the statutory maximums for the offenses. However, the appellant was sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, not the Criminal Punishment Code. Thus, as Blakely makes clear, the statutory maximum would be the maximum guidelines sentence appellant could receive without the court imposing an upward departure. See Behl v. State, 898 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ().
Johnson, 18 So.3d at 625. The district court reversed and remanded the case. Id. We granted review. See State v. Johnson, 84 So.3d 1032 (Fla.2012) (table).
The Supreme Court's decisions in Apprendi and Blakely have caused considerable confusion in criminal sentencing at both the federal and state levels. To resolve the ongoing conflict in our state's courts regarding the applicability of Blakely to sentences that were final before it issued, we begin by discussing the holdings in these two federal cases and the subsequent rulings of the Supreme Court and this Court regarding their application. Next, we explain the conflict in our state's district courts regarding Blakely's application to sentences that were final before Blakely was decided. Finally, we apply our test for determining retroactivity and hold that the rule announced in Blakely is not retroactive.
In Apprendi and Blakely, the Supreme Court addressed the limitations on the sentencing powers of a trial court. In Apprendi the Court was presented with this question: “[W]hether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a factual determination authorizing an increase in the maximum prison sentence for an offense from 10 to 20 years be made by a jury on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 469, 120 S.Ct. 2348. In that case, the defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to three counts, two of which were the second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose. Id. at 469–70, 120 S.Ct. 2348. One New Jersey statute provided a five-to-ten year sentencing range for the offense, but another gave the trial court discretion to impose an extended term of years upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the offense was a “hate crime.” Id. at 468–69, 120 S.Ct. 2348. The trial court found the offense was a hate crime and imposed an enhanced sentence. Id. at 471, 120 S.Ct. 2348. On review, the Supreme Court noted that “judges in this country have long exercised discretion of this nature in imposing sentence within statutory limits,” id. at 481, 120 S.Ct. 2348, but determined that the trial court exceeded those limits in imposing the enhanced sentence.
In sum, our reexamination of our cases in this area, and of the history upon which they rely, confirms the opinion that we expressed in Jones [ v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999) ]. Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 497, 120 S.Ct. 2348.
Subsequently, we applied our retroactivity analysis from Witt v. State, 387 So.2d 922, 925 (Fla.1980), to the new procedural rule announced in Apprendi and held that the Supreme Court's decision should not be applied retroactively to cases that were final when the decision issued. Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 846 (Fla.2005). The United States Supreme Court also has addressed the question of Apprendi's retroactivity, albeit indirectly. In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), the Court applied the rule in Apprendi to capital cases and held that “[b]ecause Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operate as ‘the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense,’ Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 494, n. 19, 120 S.Ct. 2348, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.” Then, in Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 358, 124 S.Ct. 2519, 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004), the Supreme Court applied the federal retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), to Ring and concluded that the case announced a new rule of procedure that “altered the range of permissible methods for determining whether a defendant's conduct is punishable by death, requiring that a jury rather than a judge find the essential facts bearing on punishment.” Summerlin, 542 U.S. at 353, 124 S.Ct. 2519. Accordingly, the Court held that Ring established a new procedural rule that did “not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.” Id. at 358, 124 S.Ct. 2519. The next year, this Court agreed that the rule in Ring was procedural and ruled, as we did with Apprendi, that Ring did not apply retroactively to final cases in Florida. Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005).
Four years after deciding Apprendi, the Supreme Court again addressed the limits of judicial sentencing power. In Blakely, the defendant, like Apprendi, pleaded guilty to reduced charges, “admitting the elements of second-degree kidnaping” and other charges. Blakely, 542 U.S. at 299, 124 S.Ct. 2531. The Washington statute provided a maximum term of ten years for the kidnapping, but another provision specified a “ ‘standard range’ of 49 to 53 months” for second-degree kidnapping with a firearm. Id. As authorized under the statute, the trial court imposed a sentence that exceeded the standard range but not the ten-year statutory maximum after making the additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peters v. State
... ... Here, Peters testified at the sentencing hearing that his codefendant shot a victim during the commission of an armed robbery. Thus, the occurrence of the injury was admitted, leaving only the issue of whether the trial court erred in allotting 21 victim injury points. See Johnson v. State, 700 So.2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (finding the rule of Apprendi and Blakely to be satisfied where “all defendants actively participated in the armed robbery, and the shooting occurred during the course of the armed robbery”); [128 So.3d 849] Taylor v. State, ... ...
-
Woods v. State
... ... Marlena Woods has served her time. She was released shortly before this court's en banc argument, and there is nothing we can do now to shorten her sentence. Because "[i]t is a fundamental maxim of judicial restraint that courts should not decide constitutional issues unnecessarily, " Johnson v. Feder , 485 So.2d 409, 412 (Fla. 1986) (quoting In re Forfeiture of One Cessna 337H Aircraft , 475 So.2d 1269, 127071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) ), we should dismiss this appeal. Woods challenged only her sentencenot her conviction. Generally, when a defendant challenges a sentence already ... ...
-
Jackson v. State
... ... Id. at 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428. This Court initially concluded that Ring did not apply to Florida. E.g. , Johnson v. State , 904 So.2d 400, 406 (Fla. 2005) (citing Bottoson v. Moore , 833 So.2d 693 (Fla. 2002) ; King v. Moore , 831 So.2d 143 (Fla. 2002) ). Bottoson and King were both plurality opinions that concluded that Ring did not apply to Florida because the Supreme Court had previously ... ...
-
Calloway v. State
... ... Lavado v. State , 492 So.2d 1322, 1323 (Fla. 1986) ; see also Johnson v. State , 590 So.2d 1110, 1110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (trial court abused its discretion in excluding questions about defendant's status as a convicted felon to probe for potential bias). It is a well-settled principle in Florida that parties may not question potential jurors during voir dire about ... ...
-
Judgment and sentence
...application of retroactivity, Blakely’s effect on the administration of justice would be disruptive and significant. State v. Johnson, 122 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 2013) When the court mistakenly fails to impose a mandatory provision of a sentence (here, imposing life for an armed robbery, but mist......