JOHN WESLEY BARRETT
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.
Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising Apprendi claims, and the court recedes from Plott v. State to the extent it held otherwise.
[1] Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper procedural vehicle for raising claims of sentencing error under 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“Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny, including Alleyne ('Apprendi claims'). In so holding, we recede from Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014), and its contrary holding that an Apprendi claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a).”
The court cited Maye v. State to establish the controlling legal standard for this appeal.
John Wesley Barrett appealed from a 2012 criminal conviction in Polk County Circuit Court, raising claims of sentencing error under Apprendi and its p…
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.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-0539 Lower Tribunal No. 2012-CF-006992
JOHN WESLEY BARRETT, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County.
J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge.
September 10, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Maye v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly S116 (Fla. May 14, 2026), reh'g denied, No. SC2023-1184, 2026 WL 2243835 (Fla. Aug. 4, 2026) ("[R]ule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny, including Alleyne (‘Apprendi claims'). In so holding, we recede from Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014), and its contrary holding that an Apprendi claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a).").
NARDELLA, MIZE and PRATT, JJ., concur.
John Wesley Barrett, Crawfordville, pro se.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marilyn Frances Muir, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.