JUAN LEAL ESQUIVEL
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.
A sentence that does not exceed the statutory maximum for the crime does not violate Apprendi, even if the trial court found additional facts in imposing it.
[1] A sentence that does not exceed the statutory maximum for the crime, as defined by the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of facts reflected in the j…
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“the 'statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant”
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303–04 (2004), cited in the opinion to define the relevant statutory maximum under Apprendi
Juan Leal Esquivel appealed from a judgment in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. The appeal involved a sentencing issue under Apprendi v. New Jersey.…
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 Harmless Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 18, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-2365
Lower Tribunal No. F98-1995
Juan Leal Esquivel,
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, Miguel de la O, Judge.
Juan Leal Esquivel, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See State v. Fleming, 61 So. 3d 399, 402 (Fla. 2011) (“In light of the holding in Apprendi,¹ Florida courts determined that trial courts were still empowered to find additional facts in imposing lengthier sentences, but they were limited by the maximum punishment provided by the statute for the specific crime." (citing Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757, 764 (Fla. 2002) ("Because the sentence for each of Hall's offenses did not exceed the statutory maximum, we conclude that Apprendi is inapplicable."))); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303–04 (2004) (“[T]he ‘statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. In other words, the relevant 'statutory maximum' is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings.") (citations omitted); see also Maye v. State, No. SC2023-1184, 2026 WL 1346031, at *4 (Fla. May 14, 2026) (“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.").
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)
- Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2002)
- State v. Fleming, 61 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2011)