ROBERTO TORRES
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Roberto Torres appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), arguing that his habitual felony offender (HFO) designation and sentence violates the Sixth Amendment under Erlinger v. United States because a jury, not a judge, must make the findings necessary for sentence enhancement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Torres's motion.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Torres's motion to correct illegal sentence, finding that although Torres made a colorable claim regarding Erlinger's applicability, he failed to allege the necessary prerequisites of prejudice and harmless error analysis required to obtain relief.
[1] A jury, not a judge, must make the findings necessary for a habitual felony offender sentence.
[2] Any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or free…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a judge may 'do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.'”
Establishes the constitutional limitation on judicial authority in sentencing under Erlinger
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberto Torres received a sentence as a habitual felony offender (HFO) following his conviction in a 2018 criminal case. Torres filed a motion to corr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sixth Amendment (Right To Jury Trial) cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 5D2024-3423 LT Case No. 2018-CF-057890-A _____________________________
ROBERTO TORRES,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County. Stephen George Henderson, Judge. Roberto Torres, Trenton, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee.
March 7, 2025 PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. WALLIS and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur. MAKAR, J., concurs with opinion.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2024-3423 LT Case No. 2018-CF-057890-A MAKAR, J., concurring.
Roberto Torres appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Torres argues that his designation and sentence as a habitual felony offender (HFO) is unconstitutional based on Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). Specifically, Torres contends that a jury, and not a judge, must make the findings necessary for an HFO sentence.
In Erlinger, the Supreme Court held that “a judge may ‘do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.’” Id. at 838 (quoting Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500, 511–12 (2016)). As the Erlinger Court explained:
there is no doubt what the Constitution requires in these circumstances [where a criminal defendant is facing enhancement of sentence]: Virtually ‘any fact’ that ‘increase[s] the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed’ must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea). 602 U.S. at 834 (quoting Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000)). “To hold otherwise . . . would intrude on a power the Fifth and Sixth Amendments reserve to the American people.” Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 834–35.
For Erlinger to apply, Torres was required to allege prejudice and that the error is not harmless. See Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 218 (2006) (“We have repeatedly recognized that the commission of a constitutional error at trial alone does not entitle a defendant to automatic reversal. Instead, ‘most constitutional errors can be harmless.’” (citation omitted)); see also Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 521–23 (Fla. 2007) (addressing the harmless
error issue and applying harmless error test to demonstrate Apprendi error was harmless). Though he makes a colorable claim as to Erlinger’s applicability, he has not alleged the prerequisites of prejudice and harmful error for the relief sought.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007)
- Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (U.S. 2024)
- Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (U.S. 2006)