JAMES COCHRAN
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.
Apprendi claims are subject to harmless error review and do not constitute the type of illegal sentence claim cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion, and Erlinger does not apply retroactively to sentences already final when Erlinger was decided.
[1] Apprendi claims are subject to harmless error review and are not cognizable as illegal sentence claims under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[2] Erlinger v. …
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Because Apprendi claims are subject to harmless error review, they are not the type of 'illegal sentence' claim cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion.”
From Maye v. State, cited as controlling authority for the affirmance
James Cochran appealed a sentence from Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, raising claims related to Apprendi and Erlinger.…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 27, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-0566 Lower Tribunal No. F89-5623D
James Cochran, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carmen Cabarga, Judge.
James Cochran, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Jason Michael Ross, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before MILLER, LOBREE, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Maye v. State, No. SC2023-1184, 2026 WL 1346031, at *4 (Fla. May 14, 2026) (“Because Apprendi¹ claims are subject to harmless error review, they are not the type of 'illegal sentence' claim cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion.”); Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392, 399–401 (Fla. 2025) (Erlinger² does not apply retroactively to a sentence that was already final at the time Erlinger issued); Osborn v. State, 915 So. 2d 189,190–191 (3d DCA 2005) (“[T]he Apprendi decision does not apply to the adjudication of a defendant as a habitual offender under the Florida habitual offender statute." (quoting Ashley v. State, 816 So. 2d 170, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)); Modest v. State, 892 So. 2d 566, 567 (3d DCA 2005) (“Blakely³ is not retroactive." (citing Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004))).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (U.S. 2024)
- McBRIDE v. State, 884 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Mateo v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
- Modest v. State, 892 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Osborn v. State, 915 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Ashley v. State, 816 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)