MATTHEWS V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2004 WILLIAM E. MATTHEWS, Petitioner, vs. ** ** ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. CASE NO. 3D04-2909 ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. CF99-1345 ** Opinion filed December 29, 2004. A Case of Original Jurisdiction Mandamus. William E. Matthews, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent. Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER, and WELLS, JJ. PER CURIAM. We deny William E. Matthews petition for writ of mandamus, through which he seeks to compel the trial court to correct his habitual offender sentence, pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ____, 124 S. Ct. 2631, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004). We note first that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral appeal. In re Dean, 375 F.3d 1287, 1290 (11th Cir. 2004)( Regardless whether Blakely constitutional law . . . declared Blakely appeal. ). DCA 2004). to established a new rule of the Supreme Court has not expressly be retroactive to cases on collateral See also McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th Further, Matthews general assertion that the habitual offender statute is illegal under Blakely and that he should have been given a guidelines sentence is incorrect. Blakely does not declare habitual offender sentencing illegal, and because Matthews was legally sentenced as offender the sentencing guidelines are inapplicable. Petition denied. 2 an habitual
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
