is resentenced after those cases were decided. This court is the only district to hold that applying Apprendi and Blakely under these circumstances does not constitute a retroactive application of those decisions. Compare Isaac, 911 So.2d at 814 (“The state’s argument that Apprendi is not retroactive is a valid statement of the law, see Hughes v. State, 826 So.2d, 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); however, as Apprendi was decided prior to appellant’s resentencing, the trial court was bound by its holding.”), with Langford v. State, 929 So.2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (certifying conflict with Isaac and agreeing with Judge Kahn’s dissent in Isaac that applying Blakely under these circumstances is a retroactive application of that case); Galindez v. State, 910 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>), rev. pending, SC05-1341 (Fla. July 29, 2005);
holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to  2255 motions holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to  2241 petitions holding apprendi does not apply retroactively to convictions rendered prior to its issuance notwithstanding future resentencing proceedings postblakely and certifying conflict with isaac