Courtney M. Moore v. the State of Florida

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 27, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1360 Lower Tribunal No. F22-6128 ________________

Courtney M. Moore, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Robert T. Watson, Judges.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas A. Lynch, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Flournoy v. State, No. 2D2024-1491, 2025 WL

1819262, at *2 (Fla. 2d DCA July 2, 2025) (holding potential Erlinger1 error

harmless because “[i]t [was] undisputed that the State read Flournoy’s prior

record at the sentencing hearing and that Flournoy’s certified department of

corrections packet, which detail[ed] all of his prior offenses and release

dates, was filed below and [was] contained in [the] record”; “Flournoy did not

dispute his prior record or release dates at sentencing”; “[a]nd defense

counsel conceded at sentencing that Flournoy qualified for the PRR

enhancement”); Jackson v. State, 410 So. 3d 4, 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)

(finding Erlinger error but concluding it “was harmless beyond a reasonable

doubt” because the State “introduced evidence of the convictions, their

dates, the dates of release from prison, and the fact that appellant had not

been pardoned or any convictions set aside”; “[a]n examination of the

qualifying felonies showed that none were convictions pursuant to section

893.13, Florida Statutes”; “[the] [a]ppellant did not object to any of the State’s

evidence, did not introduce any contrary evidence, and made no argument

against the application of the HFO enhancement”); see also Plott v. State,

148 So. 3d 90, 94 (Fla. 2014) (“A claim of error under Apprendi[2] and

1 Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). 2 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

2 Blakely[3] is subject to a harmless error analysis.”); cf. Erlinger, 602 U.S. at

850 (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (“[V]iolations of th[e] right [to have a jury

determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether a defendant’s predicate

offenses were committed on different occasions under the ACCA] are

subject to harmless error review.”).

3 Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).