Background
Prescott Terry was sentenced in Suwannee County Circuit Court under Florida’s habitual felony offender (HFO) statute. He appealed, raising a challenge to his HFO sentence in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), which addressed the constitutional requirements for judicial fact-finding in recidivist sentencing enhancements.
The case came before a three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal, with Chief Judge Osterhaus and Judges Lewis and Winokur presiding. Terry was represented by the Public Defender’s Office out of Tallahassee, with the State defended by the Attorney General’s Office.
The Court’s Holding
The First DCA affirmed Terry’s habitual felony offender sentence in a brief per curiam opinion, declining to resolve whether Erlinger has any impact on Florida’s HFO sentencing scheme. Instead, the court held that even assuming Erlinger applied and that any constitutional error occurred, the error was harmless under the circumstances.
The court cited three consistent decisions from Florida’s district courts reaching the same result: McGlaun v. State, 420 So. 3d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025); Avalos v. State, 419 So. 3d 299 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025); and Jackson v. State, 410 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). All three declined to decide the Erlinger question on the merits and affirmed on harmless error grounds.
Key Takeaways
- Florida’s district courts of appeal are consistently sidestepping a definitive ruling on whether Erlinger v. United States affects Florida HFO sentencing by affirming on harmless error grounds.
- Defendants challenging HFO sentences under Erlinger face a difficult path: courts across multiple Florida DCAs have uniformly found any potential error harmless without resolving the underlying constitutional question.
- The First, Fourth, and Sixth DCAs are now aligned in this approach, creating a de facto statewide pattern of deferring the Erlinger question in HFO cases.
Why It Matters
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Erlinger decision raised significant questions about whether juries — rather than judges — must find the predicate facts supporting recidivist sentencing enhancements. Florida defense attorneys have been testing those arguments in HFO cases, but the state’s appellate courts have consistently avoided deciding the issue, leaving the constitutional question unresolved while defendants’ sentences stand.
Until a Florida appellate court directly addresses whether Erlinger requires jury findings in the HFO context, or until the Florida Supreme Court weighs in, the practical effect of Erlinger on Florida HFO sentencing remains an open question. Practitioners should continue preserving the issue for possible review.