MICHAEL CARWISE
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 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 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 raise Apprendi sentencing error claims.
Michael Carwise appealed from a judgment in a criminal case in Orange County Circuit Court.…
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 Appeal Of Criminal Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2026-0847 Lower Tribunal No. 2017-CF-014246
MICHAEL CARWISE,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Barbara J. Leach, Judge.
October 16, 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 . . . ."), reh'g denied, No. SC2023-1184, 2026 WL 2243835 (Fla. Aug. 4, 2026).
NARDELLA, WHITE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.
Michael Carwise, Bonifay, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.