Background
Wesley Thomas Grace, proceeding pro se, appealed from the Circuit Court for Polk County under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). Circuit Judge Cassandra L. Denmark presided in the lower tribunal.
Grace sought relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) based on an alleged error under Apprendi and its progeny. The Sixth District resolved the appeal in a brief per curiam opinion.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District affirmed the circuit court’s ruling. The appellate court cited Maye v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly S116 (Fla. May 14, 2026), for the proposition that Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper procedural vehicle for raising an alleged error under Apprendi and related decisions.
The court provided no additional analysis of Grace’s claim and did not reach its substantive merits. Judges Stargel, Wozniak, and Pratt concurred.
Key Takeaways
- Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) cannot be used to raise a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny.
- The Sixth District relied on the Florida Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Maye v. State.
- The affirmance rested on the procedural vehicle Grace selected, not a substantive evaluation of his constitutional claim.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Florida defendants must use an appropriate procedural mechanism when asserting sentencing claims based on Apprendi. A claim framed under Rule 3.800(a) is subject to rejection without consideration of its substantive merits.