DEMARCUS LAMONT THURMAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising claims of error under Apprendi v. New Jersey and its progeny.
[1] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not the proper procedural vehicle for raising claims that judicial fact-finding violates Apprendi v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny, including Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)”
The court's statement of the controlling legal principle from Maye v. State
Demarcus Lamont Thurman appealed a circuit court order in a criminal case, raising an issue under Rule 3.800(a) regarding sentencing.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 5D2026-0949 LT Case No. 16-2011-CF-013193-A
DEMARCUS LAMONT THURMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Tatiana R. Salvador, Judge.
Demarcus Lamont Thurman, Madison, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
May 21, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Maye v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly S116 (Fla. May 14, 2026) (holding that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny, including Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and receding from Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014), and its contrary holding that an Apprendi claim is cognizable under Rule 3.800(a)).
LAMBERT, HARRIS, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013)
- Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014)