Background
Thomas Crews appealed from the Circuit Court for Collier County under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2), which governs certain appeals from summary postconviction orders. Circuit Judge John McGowan entered the order under review.
The Sixth District’s citation to Maye v. State indicates that Crews sought to raise a sentencing claim under Apprendi and its progeny, including Alleyne, through Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District affirmed the circuit court’s ruling in a per curiam opinion. The court relied on Maye v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly S116 (Fla. May 14, 2026).
Under Maye, Rule 3.800(a) is not a proper procedural vehicle for claims alleging error under Apprendi, Alleyne, or related decisions. The Florida Supreme Court in Maye receded from Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014), to the extent that Plott had treated an Apprendi claim as cognizable under Rule 3.800(a).
Key Takeaways
- The Sixth District affirmed the denial of Crews’s postconviction sentencing challenge.
- Claims under Apprendi, Alleyne, and their progeny cannot be raised through Rule 3.800(a).
- The court applied the Florida Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Maye, which receded from the contrary holding in Plott.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces a significant procedural limit on Rule 3.800(a): defendants may not use that rule to litigate alleged Apprendi-type sentencing errors. Florida practitioners must identify another procedurally available vehicle, if any, for such claims.