Background
Sylathum Antwan Streeter appealed to the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal in Case No. 6D2024-2768. The opinion identifies the proceeding as an “Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County.” It lists Lower Tribunal Nos. 1998-CF-002950 and 1998-CF-002951 and identifies Michelle O. Pincket as the circuit judge. The State of Florida was the appellee.
The appellate opinion does not describe Streeter’s offenses, convictions, sentences, the particular circuit-court ruling or rulings challenged on appeal, or the arguments presented by either party. It also does not recount a motion, response, hearing, or written circuit-court order. Those matters therefore cannot be supplied as background facts from this opinion.
The appearance information states that Sylathum Antwan Streeter of Wewahitchka appeared pro se. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marilyn Frances Muir, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, appeared for the appellee. The opinion was issued on November 6, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District issued a per curiam decision and stated a single disposition: “AFFIRMED.” The judgment of the circuit court was therefore affirmed in this appeal. The opinion did not order a reversal or remand and did not announce any additional form of relief.
Immediately after the disposition, the court wrote “See” and cited Maye v. State, 436 So. 3d 416, 418 (Fla. 2026). The quotation supplied through that citation is: “[R]ule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny . . . .” That language is presented as the opinion’s citation to Maye, not as a separately developed explanation of Streeter’s underlying claims.
The order does not identify the contents of any Rule 3.800(a) motion in this case or explain how the quoted proposition applied to particular facts. It supplies no independent analysis of Apprendi, no description of the sentence or sentences at issue, and no discussion of alternative procedural avenues. The supported holding is consequently the affirmance of this appeal, accompanied by the stated citation to Maye. The opinion separately states: “TRAVER, C.J., and WOZNIAK and KAMOUTSAS, JJ., concur.”
Key Takeaways
- The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed in Streeter’s appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.
- The appeal was brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2), and the opinion lists two lower-tribunal case numbers.
- The decision was per curiam, with TRAVER, C.J., and WOZNIAK and KAMOUTSAS, JJ., concurring.
- The sole stated authority is Maye v. State, cited for the quoted proposition that Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny.
- The opinion provides no case-specific factual or procedural explanation beyond its caption, appeal line, disposition, citation, concurrence line, and appearances.
Why It Matters
The opinion documents the outcome of this appeal and the authority the Sixth District cited alongside its affirmance. Readers can rely on it for that disposition and for the court’s express reference to Maye, but not for an account of Streeter’s underlying convictions, sentencing circumstances, or arguments. The quoted proposition concerns the vehicle for raising an Apprendi claim; the order itself does not decide or describe the merits of any particular such claim.
The opinion also carries the notation: “NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED.” That notation is part of the issued decision and should be preserved when reporting its status.