Background
John Wesley Barrett, proceeding pro se, appealed from the Circuit Court for Polk County under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). Circuit Judge J. Kevin Abdoney had entered the order under review.
The appellate opinion does not describe Barrett’s sentence or the specific allegations supporting his request for relief. Its citation to Maye v. State indicates that the appeal concerned whether a claim under Apprendi v. New Jersey and its progeny, including Alleyne v. United States, could be raised through Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s ruling in a per curiam opinion. The court relied on Maye v. State, in which the Florida Supreme Court held that Rule 3.800(a) is not a proper vehicle for raising claims under Apprendi and its progeny, including Alleyne.
Maye receded from Plott v. State to the extent Plott had held that an Apprendi claim is cognizable under Rule 3.800(a). Applying that controlling authority, the Sixth District left the lower court’s decision intact.
Key Takeaways
- Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) cannot be used to raise an Apprendi or Alleyne claim.
- The Sixth District applied the Florida Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Maye v. State.
- The appellate court affirmed without providing additional factual analysis.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Maye’s restriction on the types of sentencing claims cognizable under Rule 3.800(a). Defendants alleging Apprendi- or Alleyne-based sentencing error must seek relief through another procedurally available avenue rather than a Rule 3.800(a) motion.