Case Name: William E. MATTHEWS, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-12-29
Citations: 891 So. 2d 596
Docket Number: No. 3D04-2909
Parties: William E. MATTHEWS, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER, and WELLS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 891
Pages: 596–596

Head Matter:
William E. MATTHEWS, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 3D04-2909.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 29, 2004.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 2005.
William E. Matthews, in proper person.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER, and WELLS, JJ.

Opinion:
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. 2531, 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 established a 'new rule of constitutional law' . the Supreme Court has not expressly declared Blakely to be retroactive to cases on collateral appeal."). See also McBride v. State, 884 So.2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). 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 an habitual offender the sentencing guidelines are inapplicable.
Petition denied.