Erester Markque Ashford v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 7, 2025
• Docket: 5D2024-0070
• Status: Published

Opinion

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 5D2024-0070 LT Case No. 2022-302635-CFDB _____________________________

ERESTER MARKQUE ASHFORD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Kathryn D. Weston, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Natalie R. Gossett, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

March 7, 2025

SOUD, J.

Appellant Erester Markque Ashford was convicted of attempted carjacking, burglary of a conveyance, and assault (a lesser-included offense of the attempted carjacking charged in count III of the information). The trial court designated him a prison releasee reoffender pursuant to section 775.082(9), Florida Statutes (2021), and sentenced him to fifteen years in the Florida state prison system. Ashford appeals his judgment and sentence arguing, inter alia, that based on the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), his sentence is unconstitutional because a jury—not the trial judge—was required to decide whether Ashford met the statutory requirements of a prison releasee reoffender.

We affirm in all respects and reject Ashford’s arguments based on Erlinger. While we do not reach the merits of his arguments as to Erlinger’s impact, if any, upon existing Florida Statutes and caselaw, * even if, arguendo, any error occurred here, such an error would be harmless. See Capra v. State, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D332 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 7, 2025) (quoting Britten v. State, 181 So. 3d 1215, 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)).

AFFIRMED.

It is so ordered.

MACIVER and PRATT, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

* The Florida Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction in Maye v. State, SC2023–1184, which presents substantially similar issue(s) resulting from Erlinger.