Changeflow GovPing State Courts Sixth District Court of Appeal affirms life sen...
Routine Enforcement Amended Final

Sixth District Court of Appeal affirms life sentence for molestation

Favicon for www.courtlistener.com FL District Court of Appeal Opinions
Filed March 6th, 2026
Detected March 7th, 2026
Email

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a life sentence for Matthew Edward Zink, who was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation. The court found that any alleged error in sentencing regarding the Prison Releasee Reoffender designation was harmless.

What changed

The Sixth District Court of Appeal of Florida has affirmed the life sentence of Matthew Edward Zink, who was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation with a victim under 12. The appellate court addressed two main arguments: the inadmissibility of alleged child hearsay statements and the legality of the sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) designation. The court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the hearsay statements without further comment.

Regarding the PRR designation, the court acknowledged Zink's argument, which relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Erlinger v. United States, that a jury, not the trial court, should have made the finding concerning his release date from prior custody. However, the court found that even if this argument were accepted, affirmance was still required. Citing precedent, the court determined that any error in the PRR designation was harmless because Zink's conviction subjected him to a life sentence irrespective of that designation. Therefore, no enhanced sentence was imposed, and the error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Source document (simplified)

Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

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 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Matthew Edward Zink v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Disposition

Affirmed

Combined Opinion

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

2

Source

Analysis generated by AI. Source diff and links are from the original.

Classification

Agency
Federal and State Courts
Filed
March 6th, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Minor

Who this affects

Applies to
Courts Legal professionals
Geographic scope
State (Florida)

Taxonomy

Primary area
Criminal Justice
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Sentencing Appellate Procedure

Get State Courts alerts

Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when FL District Court of Appeal Opinions publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.