DAVID EARL PRIMM
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 a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny.
[1] Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper procedural vehicle for raising a claim of sentencing error under Apprendi and its progeny.
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 intelligenceDavid Earl Primm appealed from a conviction in Polk County Circuit Court, raising a sentencing-related claim.…
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. 6D2026-1783 Lower Tribunal No. 1991-CF-000412
DAVID EARL PRIMM, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Brandon J. Rafool, Judge.
October 30, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Maye v. State, 436 So. 3d 416, 418 (Fla. 2026) ("[R]ule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny . . . .").
STARGEL, NARDELLA and PRATT, JJ., concur.
David Earl Primm, Sneads, pro se.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.