RONNY CROOK
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 sentencing error claims based on 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“[R]ule 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 rationale for affirming, citing Maye v. State
Ronny Crook appealed from a judgment in a criminal case from Highlands County Circuit Court. The appeal involved a challenge to sentencing based on Ap…
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. 6D2026-0154 Lower Tribunal No. 1998-CF-000547
RONNY CROOK, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Highlands County. David V. Ward, Judge.
September 25, 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 [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),] and its progeny . . . ."), reh'g denied, No. SC2023-1184, 2026 WL 2243835 (Fla. Aug. 4, 2026).
TRAVER, C.J., and NARDELLA and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
Ronny Crook, Graceville, pro se.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.