RANDOLPH SOTO
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 sentencing a defendant as a prison releasee reoffender based on judicial rather than jury findings is harmless when the defendant does not dispute that he qualifies as a PRR under the statutory requirements of committing a qualifying felony within three years of release from a Department of Corrections facility.
[1] A prison releasee reoffender designation under Florida law requires that a defendant commit a qualifying felony within three years of release from a Department of Correct…
[2] Any error in determining prison releasee reoffender status by judicial finding rather than jury determination is harmless when the defendant does not dispute that he meet…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In Florida, a defendant constitutes a prison releasee reoffender when he or she commits a qualifying crime, including robbery, 'within 3 years after being released from a state correctional facility operated by the Department of Corrections.'”
Establishes the statutory definition and temporal requirement for PRR status under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2017, Soto and three co-defendants committed multiple robberies and murders over two days. A jury convicted Soto of one count of second-degree murd…
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 Conspiracy Law cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT RANDOLPH SOTO, Appellant, V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D2024-0901 [July 8, 2026] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; L.T. Case No. 062018CF006514A88810.
Patrick J. Curry of Patrick J. Curry, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. On Motion for Rehearing MAY, J.
We deny the appellant's motion for rehearing but withdraw our previously filed opinion and substitute this opinion in its place. Multiple robberies, murders, and conspiracy charges involving the defendant and three co-defendants bring this defendant to our court. The defendant appeals his convictions and sentences. He raises four issues. We affirm. We write to address his argument that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”). • The Facts In 2017, the defendant and three other co-defendants were involved in a two-day crime spree. Multiple victims were robbed at gun point, two victims were killed, and others assaulted. They were all charged with various crimes as a result.
The jury found this defendant guilty of one count of second-degree murder, five counts of armed robbery, one count of assault, and one count of criminal conspiracy. The jury did not find that the defendant carried a gun.
The trial court sentenced the defendant to life in prison as a PRR on six of the counts and 482.4 months in prison on another count. The trial court found specifically the felony murder and armed robbery offenses “[were] all enumerated felonies” and “they occurred within three years of release from a Department of Corrections facility. . . .” From his conviction and sentences, the defendant now appeals. After filing the notice of appeal, the defendant moved to correct a sentencing error. His motion requested the trial court to strike the PRR designations in the sentence based on Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). The trial court denied the motion. • The Analysis The defendant argues his sentence under the PRR statute is unconstitutional. He claims the statute does not allow the trial court to make the necessary findings for a PRR sentence by the preponderance of the evidence. Under Erlinger, he suggests his qualification as a PRR should have been determined by a jury.
The State responds the issue is unpreserved because a 3.800(b)(2) motion is incapable of preserving this type of error. The State further suggests that we have held constitutional claims cannot be submitted via a 3.800(a) motion. See State v. Smith, 360 So. 2d 21, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); State v. Spriggs, 754 So. 2d 84, 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).1 On the merits, the State suggests we need not reach the legal implications of Erlinger because any error was harmless.