James Cochran, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee. (2026)

Affirmed. See Maye v. State, No. SC2023-1184, 2026 WL 1346031, at *4 (Fla. May 14, 2026) (“Because Apprendi ¹ claims are subject to harmless error review, they are not the type of ‘illegal sentence’ claim cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion.”); Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392, 399–401 (Fla. 2025) (Erlinger ² does not apply retroactively to a sentence that was already final at the time Erlinger issued); Osborn v. State, 915 So. 2d 189,190–191 (3d DCA 2005) (“[T]he Apprendi decision does not apply to the adjudication of a defendant as a habitual offender under the Florida habitual offender statute.” (quoting Ashley v. State, 816 So. 2d 170, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)); Modest v. State, 892 So. 2d 566, 567 (3d DCA 2005) (“Blakely ³ is not retroactive.” (citing Burgal v. State, 888 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); McBride v. State, 884 So. 2d 476, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004))).

FOOTNOTES

1.   Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

2.   Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024).

3.   Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

PER CURIAM.