DEMETRIUS LAVELL PATTERSON
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 procedural mechanism for raising claims of sentencing error under Apprendi and its progeny.
[1] Rule 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“Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny . . . .”
The court cited Maye v. State for the proposition that Rule 3.800(a) cannot be used to challenge sentencing errors based on Apprendi.
Patterson appealed from a conviction and sentence imposed in Orange County Circuit Court in 2013.…
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. 6D2026-0853 Lower Tribunal No. 2013-CF-009843
DEMETRIUS LAVELL PATTERSON,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Michael Kraynick, 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[1] and its progeny . . . ."), reh'g denied, No. SC2023-1184, 2026 WL 2243835 (Fla. Aug. 4, 2026).
STARGEL, SMITH and KAMOUTSAS, JJ., concur.
Demetrius Lavell Patterson, Milton, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.