JOHN EDWARD MCGLAUN
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.
Any error in having the sentencing court rather than a jury make the findings of fact required for a habitual felony offender sentence enhancement is harmless when the defendant does not contest the qualifying facts and the record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the same facts.
[1] When a defendant fails to contest habitual felony offender qualifying facts at sentencing and does not introduce contrary evidence, any error in having the sentencing cou…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“whether the failure to have the jury make the . . . finding . . . contributed to the . . . sentence—in other words, whether the record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found" the same thing.”
The court's statement of the harmless error standard applicable when a jury finding is allegedly required at sentencing.
McGlaun was convicted of traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual conduct and received a habitual felony offender sentence enhancement. At senten…
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.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2023-2681 _____________________________
JOHN EDWARD MCGLAUN,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Holmes County. Russell S. Roberts, Judge.
October 1, 2025
PER CURIAM.
Following his conviction for traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual conduct, Appellant contests his habitual felony offender (HFO) sentence. He claims error occurred when the sentencing court, not a jury, made the findings of fact required to enhance a HFO sentence under section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2022). Appellant argues that under Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), he was entitled to a jury determination of those facts with the State being required to prove the qualifying HFO elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant also argues that the sentencing procedures to impose a HFO sentence in
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, ROWE, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
* Appellant’s sentence is before us on direct appeal, and it is thus not final for purposes of the application of decisional law issued after sentencing. See State v. Fleming, 61 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2011); cf. Wainwright v. State 411 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 2025) (holding that Erlinger does not apply retroactively to a postconviction claim).
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Tyler Kemper Payne, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Kristie Regan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007)
- Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (U.S. 2024)
- State v. Fleming, 61 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2011)
- Wainwright v. State, 411 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 2025)
- Capra v. State, 403 So. 3d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)