James Cochran v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 3D2026-0566
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 27, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D26-0566 Lower Tribunal No. F89-5623D ________________

James Cochran, 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, Carmen Cabarga, Judge.

James Cochran, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Jason Michael Ross, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before MILLER, LOBREE, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. 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) (Erlinger2 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) (“Blakely3 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))).

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).