court orders denying motions which Burton filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) challenging his departure sentence. See Burton v. State, 923 So.2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Burton v. State, 889 So.2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In his direct appeal and in these prior postconviction proceedings Burton never argued that his conviction for attempted second degree murder with a firearm should not have been classified as a first degree felony. Instead, he simply challenged the trial court’s basis fo 2006) (“Blakely ... is not retroactive”). However, the trial judge granted Burton’s third 3.800(a) motion based upon his erroneous view that Burton was entitled to relief because his direct appeal was in the “pipe-fine” when Apprendi was decided in 2000. See Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521, 530 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). Because Burton did not object to the trial
holding newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure must apply retroactively to all cases state or federal pending on direct review or not yet final with no exception holding that defendant must have clearly objected at trial to the matter he is raising on appeal recognizing that the pipeline theory allows a defendant to seek application of a new rule of law if the case is pending on direct review or not yet final and the defendant timely objected at trial holding that tillman applied to cases then pending on direct appeal ie in the pipeline holding that a new rule for conducting criminal prosecutions should be applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final