same issue in another 3.850 motion that was on appeal in this court at the time. See Hines v. State, 714 So.2d 605, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dism., 727 So.2d 906 (1998). This court affirmed the denial of that untimely and successive 3.850 motion. Thurston v. State, 902 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). This appeal is at least the third time Thurston has appealed the denial of the same frivolous claim of a violation of Ap-prendi and Blakely in this court. See Thurston v. State, 902 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (raising the same claim). The claim is utterly without merit, for neither Apprendi nor Blakely are applied retroactively and neither have any applicability to Thurston’s ease. See Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837 (Fla.2005); Figarola v. State, 841 So.2d 576, 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). Thurston has never adequately explained how
holding retroactive application holding that petitioner was barred from bringing apprendi claim on second or successive motion to vacate because supreme court had not made apprendi retroactive to cases on collateral review holding that the act is not retroactive holding apprendi is not retroactive holding that the act is retroactive