SYLVESTER NATHANIEL SMITH
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 6th DCA | 2026-09-18
No. 2024-2639
Harb, J., Mize, J., Kamoutsas, J., Pratt, J.
2026 FL 12281 Florida District Court of Appeal, Sixth District (2026)

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.


Holding

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.


Headnotes

[1] Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 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

Facts & Procedural History

Sylvester Nathaniel Smith appealed from a circuit court decision in a criminal case from Polk County. The appeal involved a challenge to sentencing un…

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.

Opinion of the Court

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 6D2024-2639 Lower Tribunal No. 2014-CF-000480

SYLVESTER NATHANIEL SMITH, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Jalal A. Harb, Judge.

September 18, 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).

MIZE, KAMOUTSAS and PRATT, JJ., concur.

Sylvester Nathaniel Smith, Arcadia, pro se.

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

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw