Opinion
Case No. SC05-1374.
June 16, 2006.
Lower Tribunal No. 16-1991-CF-2899A-XXX.
This cause is before this Court on Sweet's appeal of the denial of a successive motion for postconviction relief. Sweet asserts that the State introduced testimony in the penatly phase of his trial in violation of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as interpreted inCrawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 1354 (2004), causing harmful error. The United States Supreme Court decided Crawford in 2004, ten years after Sweet's conviction and sentence became final. See Sweet v. State, 624 So. 2d 1138 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1180 (1994). Contrary to Sweet's argument,Crawford does not apply retroactively. Chandler v. Crosby, 916 So. 2d 728, 729 (Fla. 2005). We affirm the denial of postconviction relief in this case based on our decision inChandler.
It is so orderd.
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.