STEPHAN L. CEQILE
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 v. New Jersey and its progeny.
[1] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not the proper procedural vehicle for raising a sentencing claim based on 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'”
Court's citation to Maye v. State regarding the proper procedural mechanism for sentencing challenges
Stephan L. Ceqile appealed from a criminal conviction in Polk County Circuit Court, raising a sentencing-related claim 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
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2024-2252 Lower Tribunal No. 2006-CF-006920
STEPHAN L. CEQILE, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Cassandra L. Denmark, Judge.
September 4, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See, e.g., Maye v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly S116, 2026 WL 1346031, at *1 (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"); Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392, 399 & n.13 (Fla.) (“[E]ven if Erlinger [v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024),] constitutes a change of law, it does not apply retroactively. . . . Although we conduct a state-law analysis, we conclude that Erlinger also does not apply retroactively based on federal law."), cert. denied sub nom., Wainwright v. Florida, 145 S. Ct. 2789 (2025).
SMITH, KAMOUTSAS and PRATT, JJ., concur.
Ryan Edward McFarland, of Kent & McFarland Attorneys at Law, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marilyn Frances Muir, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (U.S. 2024)
- Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 2025)