Background
A jury convicted Robert Alan McCartney of sexual battery with a deadly weapon or use of force likely to cause serious personal injury. The trial court imposed an upward-departure life sentence. McCartney did not object at sentencing under Apprendi v. New Jersey to the trial court’s determination of the facts supporting the departure, and the Third District previously affirmed his conviction and sentence.
McCartney later filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), asserting for the first time that his sentence was illegal under Apprendi. The circuit court denied the motion, and McCartney appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed. While the appeal was pending, the Florida Supreme Court decided Maye v. State, receding from Plott v. State and holding that Rule 3.800(a) is not a proper vehicle for asserting an Apprendi claim.
McCartney conceded that Maye controlled and required affirmance. The court affirmed the denial without prejudice to McCartney filing a timely Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, while expressing no view on whether such a motion would be cognizable or meritorious.
Key Takeaways
- An Apprendi challenge is not cognizable in a Florida Rule 3.800(a) motion under Maye.
- Maye controlled a pending appeal challenging the denial of a Rule 3.800(a) motion.
- The affirmance did not decide the availability or merits of potential Rule 3.850 relief.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Florida Supreme Court’s change in postconviction procedure: defendants cannot use Rule 3.800(a) to litigate Apprendi-based sentencing claims. Counsel must assess the appropriate postconviction vehicle and applicable timeliness requirements.