MATTHEW EDWARD ZINK
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.
Matthew Edward Zink appeals his conviction for lewd and lascivious molestation and life sentence. The trial court excluded child hearsay statements and designated him a prison releasee reoffender without jury findings. The appellate court affirms both rulings, finding any PRR designation error harmless because the underlying offense subjected him to a mandatory life sentence regardless.
The trial court's exclusion of child hearsay statements was proper and affirmed without further comment. Any error in the PRR designation is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the lewd and lascivious molestation conviction itself mandates a life sentence, so Zink is not serving an enhanced sentence based on the PRR designation.
[1] A trial court's alleged error in designating a defendant as a prison releasee reoffender without a jury finding regarding the release date is subject to harmless error an…
[2] An error in sentencing is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the defendant is not serving an enhanced sentence as a result of the error.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“since the offense for which Zink was convicted of subjected him to a life sentence irrespective of any PRR designation, he is not serving an enhanced sentence”
Establishes why any error in the PRR designation is harmless—the base offense itself mandates the life sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZink was convicted by jury of lewd and lascivious molestation with a victim less than 12 years of age. He received a life sentence on July 22, 2024, a…
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 Child Hearsay Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2024-1626 Lower Tribunal No. 2021-CF-000977
MATTHEW EDWARD ZINK,
Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County. John McGowan, Judge.
March 6, 2026
PER CURIAM.
Matthew Edward Zink appeals the judgment and life sentence rendered on July 22, 2024, after a jury found him guilty of lewd and lascivious molestation with a victim less than 12 years of age. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in not allowing a witness to testify regarding alleged child hearsay statements, and that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a prison releasee reoffender ("PRR") because the jury did not make any findings regarding his release date from prison. As to the trial court's finding that the child hearsay statements were inadmissible, we affirm without further comment.
Relying on Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), Zink argues that his sentence, which included a designation as a prison releasee reoffender, is illegal because the trial court, rather than a jury, made the requisite finding concerning the date he was released from custody on his prior conviction. While we have rejected this argument in the past, even if accepted here, affirmance would still be required. See Maye v. State, 368 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), review granted, No. SC2023-1184, 2024 WL 1796831 (Fla. Apr. 25, 2024). As we held in Avalos v. State, 419 So. 3d 299, 300 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025), this type of alleged error is subject to a harmless error analysis, and since the offense for which Zink was convicted of subjected him to a life sentence irrespective of any PRR designation, he is not serving an enhanced sentence. Accordingly, the error, if any, is harmless on this record beyond a reasonable doubt. See Scott v. State, 413 So. 3d 276, 278 (Fla 5th DCA 2025) (“[B]ecause Scott is not serving an enhanced sentence in this case, the error, if any, committed by the trial court when it imposed Scott's HFO sentences is harmless on this record beyond a reasonable doubt."). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL and NARDELLA, JJ., concur. Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Brett S. Chase, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (U.S. 2024)
- Magneson v. State, 368 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
- Kaiser v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)