Ray Anthony Combs, Jr. v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 27, 2026
• Docket: 6D2024-1613
• Status: Published

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-1613 Lower Tribunal No. 24CF001845AOR _____________________________

RAY ANTHONY COMBS, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Kevin B. Weiss, Judge.

March 27, 2026

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ray Anthony Combs, Jr., appeals his convictions and sentences,

alleging that the trial court erred when it: (i) improperly found that the State’s

surveillance footage met the Wagner 1 test; and (ii) infringed on his constitutional

rights by denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion to correct

sentencing error. As to the first argument, we affirm without comment. As to the

1 Wagner v. State, 707 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). second, we briefly address Appellant’s claim that his sentences are illegal under

Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024).

After finding that Appellant had a prior record which qualified him for the

mandatory minimum sentence imposed, the trial court sentenced Appellant to

concurrent sentences of 123.15 months’ imprisonment. In his rule 3.800(b) motion,

Appellant argues that his sentences are illegal under Erlinger because a jury was

supposed to engage in fact-finding regarding his previous convictions. Assuming

Erlinger applies, any error in this case is harmless. See Avalos v. State, 419 So. 3d

299, 300 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025); Ashford v. State, 407 So. 3d 537, 537 (Fla. 5th DCA

2025); Capra v. State, 403 So. 3d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025). Similar to

Avalos, Appellant is not challenging the “sufficiency or the weight of the evidence

adduced by the State, or otherwise alleg[ing] any prejudice.” 419 So. 3d at 300.

Instead, Appellant alleges only procedural error in arguing that a jury, not a judge,

should have found the facts that underlay his prior convictions.

“A harmless error analysis in this context looks to ‘whether the record

demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury’ would have found the

requisite facts.” Id. (quoting Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 523 (Fla. 2007)).

The record reflects Appellant had an extensive criminal record that clearly qualified

him for the enhanced sentence. Because a rational jury would have arrived at the

2 same conclusion as the trial court regarding Appellant’s prior convictions, any error

is harmless and, therefore, not reversible error.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.

Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Megan Banfield, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alyssa M. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED