Background
Stephen Andrew Moretto, proceeding without counsel, appealed from the Circuit Court for Lee County under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appeal concerned postconviction proceedings arising from his criminal case.
The Sixth District’s brief opinion does not describe Moretto’s sentence or the details of his claim. It cites the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Maye v. State, which addressed whether claims under Apprendi and its progeny, including Alleyne, may be raised through Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District affirmed the circuit court’s ruling. It relied on Maye, which held that Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper procedural vehicle for raising an alleged sentencing error under Apprendi, Alleyne, or related decisions.
The court provided no additional analysis. Its citation to Maye reflects the Florida Supreme Court’s receding from Plott v. State, which had held that an Apprendi claim could be raised under Rule 3.800(a).
Key Takeaways
- Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not a proper vehicle for an Apprendi-based sentencing claim.
- The rule also cannot be used to raise claims under Alleyne or other cases within the Apprendi line.
- The Sixth District summarily affirmed based on the Florida Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Maye.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Maye at the district-court level and confirms that defendants cannot use Rule 3.800(a) to obtain review of alleged Apprendi-type errors. Such claims must be pursued, if otherwise available, through a different procedural mechanism.