Erlinger error in Florida

2025See Flournoy v. State, No. 2D2024-1491, 2025 WL 1819262 , at *2 (Fla. 2d DCA July 2, 2025) (holding potential Erlinger1 error harmless because “[i]t [was] undisputed that the State read Flournoy’s prior record at the sentencing hearing and that Flournoy’s certified department of corrections packet, which detail[ed] all of his prior offenses and release dates, was filed below and [was] contained in [the] record”; “Flournoy did not dispute his prior record or release dates at sentencing”; “[a]nd defense counsel conceded at sentencing that Flournoy qualified for the PRR enhancement”); Jackson v.

2025See Flournoy v. State, No. 2D2024-1491, 2025 WL 1819262 , at *2 (Fla. 2d DCA July 2, 2025) (holding potential Erlinger1 error harmless because “[i]t [was] undisputed that the State read Flournoy’s prior record at the sentencing hearing and that Flournoy’s certified department of corrections packet, which detail[ed] all of his prior offenses and release dates, was filed below and [was] contained in [the] record”; “Flournoy did not dispute his prior record or release dates at sentencing”; “[a]nd defense counsel conceded at sentencing that Flournoy qualified for the PRR enhancement”); Jackson v.

2026See generally State v. Manago, 375 So. 3d 190 , 203 (Fla. 2023) (“[A] trial court, on remand after making an Alleyne error, is not foreclosed from empaneling a jury to make a factual determination that affects the legally prescribed range of allowable sentences.”); Gaymon v. State, 288 So. 3d 1087 , 1090-93 (Fla. 2020) (discussing four different potential remedies to an Apprendi/Blakely violation, rejecting severability as a remedy, explaining that although the judiciary has “the inherent authority to fashion remedies” “[w]hen confronted with new constitutional problems to which the Legislatur

2026See Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392 , 399 (Fla. 2025).

2026See Avalos, 419 So. 3d at 300 (applying harmless error analysis to an as-applied challenge based on Erlinger); see also Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 218 (2006) (acknowledging that “most constitutional errors can be harmless” (citation omitted)). 18

2026See Perry v. State, 849 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (recognizing that “rule 3.800(b) could apply to a new sentence imposed as the result of an order granting postconviction relief”). 2 In the Order, the trial court reduced Hawkins’s life sentences for attempted first-degree murder and burglary with assault or battery while armed to guidelines sentences of twenty-two years in prison for each crime. 3 To the extent that Hawkins now argues he is entitled to relief on another basis, we decline to address such basis because Hawkins failed to raise it in 2 We affirm the denial of Hawkins’s Er

2026See Sanchez v. State, 435 So. 3d 1211 , 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“In examining the record before the trial court, any error in failing to submit the habitual felony offender factors to a jury amounts to, at most, harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.”); Alvarado-Balmaceda v. State, 435 So. 3d 1169 , 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“Thus, based on the record before us, we conclude that any error in failing to submit the habitual violent felony offender factors to a jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and affirm.”); Madison v. State, 433 So. 3d 514 , 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“An Erlinger er

2026See Sanchez v. State, 435 So. 3d 1211 , 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“In examining the record before the trial court, any error in failing to submit the habitual felony offender factors to a jury amounts to, at most, harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.”); Alvarado-Balmaceda v. State, 435 So. 3d 1169 , 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“Thus, based on the record before us, we conclude that any error in failing to submit the habitual violent felony offender factors to a jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and affirm.”); Madison v. State, 433 So. 3d 514 , 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“An Erlinger er

2026See Sanchez v. State, 435 So. 3d 1211 , 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“In examining the record before the trial court, any error in failing to submit the habitual felony offender factors to a jury amounts to, at most, harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.”); Alvarado-Balmaceda v. State, 435 So. 3d 1169 , 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“Thus, based on the record before us, we conclude that any error in failing to submit the habitual violent felony offender factors to a jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and affirm.”); Madison v. State, 433 So. 3d 514 , 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“An Erlinger er

2026See Sanchez v. State, 435 So. 3d 1211 , 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“In examining the record before the trial court, any error in failing to submit the habitual felony offender factors to a jury amounts to, at most, harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.”); Alvarado-Balmaceda v. State, 435 So. 3d 1169 , 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“Thus, based on the record before us, we conclude that any error in failing to submit the habitual violent felony offender factors to a jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and affirm.”); Madison v. State, 433 So. 3d 514 , 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“An Erlinger er

2026See Avalos, 419 So. 3d at 300 (applying harmless error analysis to an as-applied challenge based on Erlinger); see also Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 218 (2006) (acknowledging that “most constitutional errors can be harmless” (citation omitted)). 18

2025See Tanzi I, 964 So. 2d at 112 n.2; Tanzi IV, 251 So. 3d at 805-06 .

2025See Tanzi I, 964 So. 2d at 112 n.2; Tanzi IV, 251 So. 3d at 805-06 .

2025See Flournoy v. State, No. 2D2024-1491, 2025 WL 1819262 , at *2 (Fla. 2d DCA July 2, 2025) (holding potential Erlinger1 error harmless because “[i]t [was] undisputed that the State read Flournoy’s prior record at the sentencing hearing and that Flournoy’s certified department of corrections packet, which detail[ed] all of his prior offenses and release dates, was filed below and [was] contained in [the] record”; “Flournoy did not dispute his prior record or release dates at sentencing”; “[a]nd defense counsel conceded at sentencing that Flournoy qualified for the PRR enhancement”); Jackson v.

2025See Flournoy v. State, No. 2D2024-1491, 2025 WL 1819262 , at *2 (Fla. 2d DCA July 2, 2025) (holding potential Erlinger1 error harmless because “[i]t [was] undisputed that the State read Flournoy’s prior record at the sentencing hearing and that Flournoy’s certified department of corrections packet, which detail[ed] all of his prior offenses and release dates, was filed below and [was] contained in [the] record”; “Flournoy did not dispute his prior record or release dates at sentencing”; “[a]nd defense counsel conceded at sentencing that Flournoy qualified for the PRR enhancement”); Jackson v.

2025Cf. Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 574 (Fla. 2008).