Juan Leal Esquivel v. State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida

Opinion filed June 18, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-2365
Lower Tribunal No. F98-1995
________________

Juan Leal Esquivel,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida,
Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel de la O, Judge.

Juan Leal Esquivel, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See State v. Fleming, 61 So. 3d 399, 402 (Fla. 2011) (“In

light of the holding in Apprendi,1 Florida courts determined that trial courts

were still empowered to find additional facts in imposing lengthier sentences,

but they were limited by the maximum punishment provided by the statute

for the specific crime.” (citing Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757, 764 (Fla. 2002)

(“Because the sentence for each of Hall's offenses did not exceed the

statutory maximum, we conclude that Apprendi is inapplicable.”))); Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303–04 (2004) (“[T]he ‘statutory maximum’ for

Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on

the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the

defendant. In other words, the relevant ‘statutory maximum’ is not the

maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the

maximum he may impose without any additional findings.”) (citations

omitted); see also Maye v. State, No. SC2023-1184, 2026 WL 1346031, at

*4 (Fla. May 14, 2026) (“Because Apprendi claims are subject to harmless

error review, they are not the type of ‘illegal sentence’ claim cognizable in a

rule 3.800(a) motion.”).

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

2