PER CURIAM. We have for review Barron v. State, 931 So.2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), in which the Second District Court of Appeal certified conflict with Isaac v. State, 911 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction filed, No. SC05-2047 (Fla. Oct.31, 2005).
We note that the defendant's conviction became final when his original appeal was affirmed and this court's mandate issued on April 3, 2000, over two months before the June 26, 2000, decision in Apprendi Thus, Apprendi is potentially applicable only if given retroactive effect. See Cutts v. State, 940 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Barron v. State, 931 So.2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Recently, the Florida Supreme Court declined to decide the retro-activity issue in Galindez v. State, No. SC05-1341, 955 So.2d 517, 2007 WL 471164 (Fla. Feb.15, 2007), and employed a harmful error analysis for the specific situation addressed in that case.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentences imposed in 2005 for Mr. Cutts' convictions that became final in 2001. As in Barron v. State, 931 So.2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), we certify direct conflict with the First District's decision in Isaac, 911 So.2d at 813. STRINGER and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
However, in Isaac v. State, 911 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), we held that Apprendi applies to cases, such as this one, where the defendant is resentenced after Apprendi was decided. But see Barron v. State, 931 So.2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (certifying conflict with Isaac); Galindez v. State, 910 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA) (holding Apprendi did not apply to convictions rendered prior to its issuance notwithstanding future resentencing proceedings post-Blakely, and certifying conflict with Isaac), review pending, SC05-1341 (Fla. filed July 29, 2005); Garcia v. State, 914 So.2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (certifying conflict with Isaac); Langford v. State, 929 So.2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (certifying conflict with Isaac). Furthermore, even though appellant was resentenced prior to Blakely, the holding of Blakely applies to appellant's case because Blakely is a clarification of Apprendi.
Contrary to the holding of this court in Burrows, the First District in Isaac v. State, 911 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), on collateral review applied the United States Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), retroactively to a sentence that became final before the issuance of the Blakely opinion. As this court did in Barron v. State, 931 So.2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), we certify direct conflict with Isaac. Affirmed; conflict certified.