Matthew Edward Zink v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 6, 2026
• Docket: 6D2024-1626
• Status: Published

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