Davis v. State of Florida - Sentencing Appeal Affirmed

FL District Court of Appeal Opinions

Filed March 18th, 2026

Detected March 18th, 2026

Summary

The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the sentencing of Jermaine Antwan Davis in Davis v. State of Florida. The court found that even if the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States applied, the sentencing error was harmless because the defendant did not dispute his qualification as a habitual felony offender and prison releasee reoffender.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Florida District Court of Appeal, in the case of Davis v. State of Florida (Docket No. 2D2024-1137), affirmed the conviction and sentence for aggravated battery. The court specifically addressed the defendant's challenge to his sentencing as a habitual felony offender (HFO) and prison releasee reoffender (PRR) based on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Erlinger v. United States, which concerns jury findings for sentence enhancements. The appellate court determined that even if Erlinger applied, the error was harmless because Davis did not dispute his criminal history or factual qualification for HFO and PRR status, and the record supported these findings beyond a reasonable doubt.

This decision has implications for legal professionals and criminal defendants in Florida regarding sentencing enhancements. While the court affirmed the sentence, it clarifies that such sentencing errors are subject to harmless error review. Compliance officers and legal counsel should note that defendants who do not contest their eligibility for HFO or PRR status may not be able to overturn their sentences on appeal, even if the underlying facts were not presented to a jury. The ruling reinforces the importance of clear factual stipulations or jury findings regarding prior convictions when imposing enhanced sentences.

What to do next

Review sentencing orders for potential Erlinger v. United States challenges.
Ensure clear documentation and factual basis for HFO and PRR sentencing enhancements.
Consult with legal counsel on potential harmless error arguments in sentencing appeals.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Davis v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Citations: None known
Docket Number: 2D2024-1137
Disposition: Affirmed
Opinion
Authorities (3)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Disposition

Affirmed

Combined Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT

JERMAINE ANTWAN DAVIS,

Appellant,

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2024-1137

March 18, 2026

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone,
Judge.

Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Karen M. Kinney, Assistant Public
Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison C. Heim,
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
On this appeal of the final judgment and sentence, Jermaine
Antwan Davis raises several challenges to his conviction and sentence for
aggravated battery. We affirm without discussion as to all of them except
one: that his sentencing as a habitual felony offender (HFO) and prison
releasee reoffender (PRR) runs afoul of Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S.
821 (2024), because the HFO and PRR statutes do not require that the
qualifying facts for those enhancements be found by a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt.
As to that challenge, we also affirm, but we write briefly to explain
that even assuming Erlinger applies to Davis's sentence, reversal would
nonetheless be unwarranted because the resulting error would be
harmless. See Flournoy v. State, 415 So. 3d 806, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
("Florida courts have recognized that the types of errors addressed in
Apprendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)], Blakely [v. Washington,
542 U.S. 296 (2004)], and Alleyne [v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013),]
are subject to harmless error review. It follows then that Erlinger errors
are also subject to harmless error." (citations omitted)). At sentencing,
the State submitted certified copies of Davis's pertinent Department of
Corrections records, and Davis's counsel agreed that Davis qualified as
both an HFO and a PRR. At no point has Davis disputed his criminal
history or that he factually qualifies as both an HFO and a PRR. The
record therefore demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that no
rational jury would have found the requisite facts any differently than the
sentencing court. See Flournoy, 415 So. 3d at 808–09 (concluding that
any error was harmless because "the State read Flournoy's prior record
at the sentencing hearing"; "Flournoy's certified department of
corrections packet, which details all of his prior offenses and release
dates, was filed below and is contained in our record"; "Flournoy did not
dispute his prior record or release dates at sentencing"; and "defense
counsel conceded at sentencing that Flournoy qualified for the PRR
enhancement"); McGlaun v. State, 420 So. 3d 634, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA
2025) (concluding that any error was harmless because defendant "did
not contest the HFO qualifying facts or the admission of any of the
State's evidence to prove these facts" at the sentencing hearing, "did not
introduce any contrary evidence[,] and never argued that he did not
qualify for an HFO sentence enhancement"); see also, e.g., Hicks v. State,

2
No. 1D2024-1300, 2025 WL 2921590, at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 15, 2025)
(concluding that any error was harmless because "[b]oth Appellant and
his counsel acknowledged below that he was released from prison within
three years of committing his current offenses, and the Department of
Corrections' records so reflect"); Avalos v. State, 419 So. 3d 299, 300
(Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (concluding that any error was harmless because
the State at sentencing "adduced evidence establishing that Avalos
qualified as a[n] [HFO]" and Avalos "did not, and does not, challenge the
sufficiency or the weight of the evidence adduced by the State or
otherwise allege any prejudice"). Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.