ALVAREZ v. STATE (2025)

Affirmed. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(2) (exempting, from the rule's two-year time limitation, motions alleging that “the fundamental constitutional right asserted was not established within the period provided for herein and has been held to apply retroactively, and the claim is made within 2 years of the date of the mandate of the decision announcing the retroactivity[.]”); Wainwright v. State, SC2025-0708, ––– So. 3d ––––, –––– – ––––, 2025 WL 1561151, at *5-6 (Fla. June 3, 2025) (concluding that the purpose of the United Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 144 S.Ct. 1840, 219 L.Ed.2d 451 (2024) “is to conform criminal procedure to the Sixth Amendment's guarantee”; that Erlinger “is not a development of fundamental significance under our existing retroactivity test”; and holding that Erlinger does not apply retroactively); see also Padgett v. State, No. 3D25-349, ––– So. 3d ––––, ––––, 2025 WL 1172840, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA April 23, 2025) (“A life sentence is not impermissible ‘indefinite imprisonment’ under the Florida Constitution. Art. I, § 17, Fla. Const.” (citing Ratliff v. State, 914 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2005) (“Any sentence, even one of a short duration, can potentially exceed a defendant's life span. The fact that the judicial system has no way of knowing how long the defendant will live and therefore cannot know how long the defendant will be incarcerated does not render a life sentence unconstitutionally indefinite. It is abundantly clear that the Legislature, by prescribing a sentence of life imprisonment, intends that the defendant remain in prison for the rest of his life. The term ‘life’ is sufficiently definite so that it can be understood and applied.”))).

PER CURIAM.