CHARLES MORGAN CARPENTER
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.
An Apprendi claim challenging PRR designation as a violation of the Sixth Amendment cannot be raised by motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.800(b)(2) and must be preserved at trial by contemporaneous objection.
[1] A claim that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury, rather than a judge, to find facts supporting a Prison Releasee Reoffender designation challenges the sentencing process…
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“a claim that a jury, not the judge, is required to make a particular finding beyond a reasonable doubt 'alleges an error in the sentencing process—not an error in the sentencing order itself'”
Court's explanation of why Apprendi claims cannot be raised via Rule 3.800(b) motion, citing Shinault v. State
Carpenter was convicted by jury of burglary of a dwelling with battery, criminal mischief, and petit theft, and was sentenced to life imprisonment as …
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 Criminal Mischief cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
No. 1D2024-2821
CHARLES MORGAN CARPENTER, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Franklin County. Francis J. Allman, Jr., Judge.
August 26, 2026
PER CURIAM.
Following jury trial, the court convicted Charles Morgan Carpenter of burglary of a dwelling with a battery, criminal mischief, and petit theft. The court sentenced Carpenter to life imprisonment as a Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR). We affirm the judgment and sentence, rejecting each of the arguments Carpenter raises on appeal. We write only to address Carpenter's claim that his designation as a PRR and resulting sentence were unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny.
After appealing the judgment and sentence, Carpenter filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.800(b)(2), claiming in part that his designation as a PRR and resulting sentence violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the judge, rather than the jury, found the facts that supported PRR designation, namely, that his offenses occurred within three years after being released from a state correctional facility. See § 775.082(9)(a)1., Fla. Stat. The court denied the motion.
Carpenter claims that the trial court erred in denying his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. We reject this argument because an Apprendi claim cannot be made by a motion under rule 3.800(b)(2). Shinault v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1390, 1391 (Fla. 1st DCA July 8, 2026) (finding that a “claim that a jury, not the judge, is required to make a particular finding beyond a reasonable doubt ‘alleges an error in the sentencing process—not an error in the sentencing order itself" and therefore may not be raised by motion under rule 3.800(b) (citation omitted)). See also Maye v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly S116, 119 (Fla. May 14, 2026) (Francis, J., concurring) (footnote omitted) (finding that a claim that the PRR statute violates the Sixth Amendment “is, ultimately, a challenge to the how the procedure required by the PRR statute—not a challenge to the what—the legality of [the] sentence.”) (emphases in original, footnote omitted).1 Because Carpenter could not raise this issue by rule 3.800(b) motion, he was required to preserve it at trial. See Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 573 (Fla. 2008) (holding that errors in the sentencing process can only be preserved for review by contemporaneous objection, not by motion under rule 3.800(b)).2 He failed to do so; therefore, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERTS, WINOKUR, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008)
- Odell Rutledge v. State, 1 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Hicks v. State, 422 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)