WILLIE R. WILSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 6th DCA | 2026-09-18
No. 2025-1068
Combee, J., White, J., Brownlee, J., Kamoutsas, J.
2026 FL 12285 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

Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising Apprendi and Alleyne claims.


Headnotes

[1] Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny, including Alleyne.

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

Key Quotes

“Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny, including Alleyne ('Apprendi claims').”

The court cited Maye v. State for the proposition that Rule 3.800(a) cannot be used to raise Apprendi claims, and receded from Plott v. State.

Facts & Procedural History

Willie R. Wilson appealed from a 1992 conviction in Polk County Circuit Court. The appeal involved a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny.…

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. 6D2025-1068 Lower Tribunal No. 1992-CF-003701

WILLIE R. WILSON, Appellant,

V.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Catherine L. Combee, Judge.

September 18, 2026

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Maye v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly S116, S116 (Fla. May 14, 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).").

WHITE, BROWNLEE and KAMOUTSAS, JJ., concur.

Dan Ripley, of Ripley Whisenhunt, PLLC, Pinellas Park, 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

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw