POUNDS v. STATE (2025)

Affirmed. See Ford v. State, 402 So. 3d 973, 981 (Fla. 2025) (“Erlinger was a direct-appeal case—not a postconviction case like Ford's—and it involved required jury findings regarding an element. Based on these fundamental distinctions, it is clear that Erlinger provides no support for vacating Ford's death sentences.”); Tanzi v. State, 407 So. 3d 385, 394–95 (Fla. 2025) (finding postconviction review of defendant's sentence based on Erlinger was improper); Wainwright v. State, No. SC2025-0708, 2025 WL 1561151, at *5 (Fla. June 3, 2025) (“We reject Wainwright's argument because even if Erlinger constitutes a change of law, it does not apply retroactively.”), cert. denied sub nom. Wainwright v. Florida, No. 24-7365, 2025 WL 1621505 (U.S. June 9, 2025); Figarola v. State, 841 So. 2d 576, 577 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citation omitted) (“Apprendi was characterized as a procedural rule by the Supreme Court. Since announcing Teague, the Supreme Court has not given retroactive effect to any decisions announcing new constitutional rules of criminal procedure.”); Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 581 (2002) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“No Court of Appeals, let alone [the Supreme Court], has held that Apprendi has retroactive effect.”); Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 358 (2004) (“Ring announced a new procedural rule that does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.”); Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922, 926 (Fla. 1980) (“[T]he essential considerations in determining whether a new rule of law should be applied retroactively are essentially three: (a) the purpose to be served by the new rule; (b) the extent of reliance on the old rule; and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new rule.”); Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837, 847–48 (Fla. 2005) (concluding Apprendi does not apply retroactively); Luton v. State, 934 So. 2d 7, 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (noting defendant did not object that jury, not judge, must determine his HVFO qualifications and therefore issue was not preserved); see also Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90, 94 (Fla. 2014) (“A claim of error under Apprendi and Blakely is subject to a harmless error analysis.”).

PER CURIAM.