Background
Bernier Gerard Jackson, proceeding pro se, appealed from the Circuit Court for Orange County in lower-tribunal case number 2012-CF-013345-A-O. The appeal proceeded under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2).
Jackson sought relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) based on an asserted error under Apprendi and its progeny. Circuit Judge Barbara J. Leach entered the ruling under review.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s ruling. The court relied on Maye v. State, 436 So. 3d 416, 418 (Fla. 2026), which held that Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny.
The court issued a brief per curiam opinion without further analysis. Judges Brownlee, Gannam, and Pratt concurred.
Key Takeaways
- A claim under Apprendi and its progeny may not be raised through a Rule 3.800(a) motion.
- The Sixth District applied the Florida Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Maye v. State.
- The appellate court affirmed without addressing the underlying Apprendi claim on its merits.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Rule 3.800(a), which permits correction of certain sentencing errors, is procedurally unavailable for claims alleging error under Apprendi and related cases. Florida practitioners must identify a different authorized procedural vehicle, if one remains available, for such constitutional sentencing claims.