JIMMY LEE JONES
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 a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny.
[1] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not the proper procedural vehicle for raising sentencing errors based on Apprendi and its progeny.
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 and its progeny”
Holding from Maye v. State, cited by the court
Jimmy Lee Jones appealed from a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County, raising a claim of error under Apprendi.…
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
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 13, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D26-1236
Lower Tribunal No. F01-26554
Jimmy Lee Jones,
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, Tanya Brinkley, Judge. Jimmy Lee Jones, in proper person. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, GOODEN, and REBULL, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Maye v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly S116 (Fla. May 14, 2026) (holding Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny); Martinez v. State, 211 So. 3d 989, 991 (Fla. 2017) (“We have recognized that few claims raised under rule 3.800(a) come within the illegality contemplated by the rule.") (quotation omitted).