RODRECIUS ANTONIO HAMILTON
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 claims of error under Apprendi v. New Jersey and its progeny.
[1] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not the proper 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“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 procedure for raising Apprendi claims
Rodrecius Antonio Hamilton appealed from a judgment in a criminal case in Polk County Circuit Court. The appeal involved a challenge to sentencing bas…
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. 6D2025-2821 Lower Tribunal No. 2015-CF-009544-A000-XX
RODRECIUS ANTONIO HAMILTON, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Gerald P. Hill, II, Judge.
September 10, 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).
TRAVER, C.J., and WOZNIAK and PRATT, JJ., concur.
Rodrecius Antonio Hamilton, Graceville, pro se.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, 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)