departing from the sentencing guidelines. In his second 3.800(a) motion, filed in 2004, Burton argued for the first time that the findings could not legally support an upward departure under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because they were not made by a jury. Again, we affirmed the trial court’s denial on this basis, without opinion. In his third 3.800(a) motion, Burton once again challenged the findings made by the trial judge to support the upward departure based upon Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and also cited Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Apprendi and Blakely do not apply retroactively. See Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 840 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>); Langford v. State, 929 So.2d 598 (Fla. 5th
holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to  2255 motions holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review holding that ring does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the ring decision holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida in postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision