EDWARD LEE WILSON
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 Apprendi claims challenging judicial fact-finding that increases a sentence.
[1] Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper procedural vehicle for raising Apprendi claims challenging judicial fact-finding that increases a sentence beyond the statutory maximum.
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 intelligenceEdward Lee Wilson appealed from a conviction and sentence imposed by the Circuit Court for Lee County.…
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. 6D2025-1780 Lower Tribunal No. 1990-CF-002153
EDWARD LEE WILSON,
Appellant, v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Bruce Kyle, Judge.
October 2, 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, 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).").
STARGEL, WHITE and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Edward Lee Wilson, Port St. Lucie, pro se.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marilyn Frances Muir, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.