and denied relief. See also Jones v. State, 845 So.2d 55, 74 (Fla.2003). Over-ton is likewise not entitled to relief on this claim. Furthermore, one of the aggravating circumstances found by the trial court here was Overton’s previous conviction of a violent felony, “a factor which under Ap-prendi and Ring need not be found by the jury.” Jones v. State, 855 So.2d 611, 619 (Fla.2003); see also Doorbal v. State, 837 So.2d 940, 963 (Fla.) (rejecting the Ring claim where one of the aggravating circumstances found by the trial judge was defendant’s prior conviction for a violent felony), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 962, 123 S.Ct. 2647, 156 L.Ed.2d 663 (2003). Finally, this Court has previously held that Ring and Apprendi cannot receive retroactive application. See Johnson, 904 So.2d at 412 (<HOLDING>); Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 840
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 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 batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct 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 the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review