ALONSO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 2d DCA | 2025-07-09
No. 2023-2304
Sleet, J., Morris, J., Rothstein-Youakim, J., Handsel, J.
415 So. 3d 826 2025 FL 6062 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2025) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence, and any error in designating Alonso as a prison releasee reoffender and habitual felony offender is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Headnotes

[1] A party need not renew an objection made in a motion in limine at trial to preserve a claim of evidentiary error for appeal when the trial court has made a definitive rul…

Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Jesse Alonso was convicted of resisting arrest with violence. He appealed challenging the admission of certain evidence at trial and the trial court's…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Fundamental Error Analysis Resisting Arrest With Violence Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings Prison Releasee Reoffender Act

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fundamental Error Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Youakim

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JESSE ALONSO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-2304

July 9, 2025

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Mary M. Handsel, Judge.

Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Jeri Delgado, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

SLEET, Judge.

Jesse Alonso appeals from his judgment and sentence for resisting arrest with violence. We find no merit in Alonso's argument that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence at trial, and accordingly, we affirm his conviction.1 Additionally, any error in the trial court's determining that Alonso met the statutory requirements to be designated a prison releasee reoffender and a habitual felony offender is harmless based on the record before us. See Jackson v. State, 4D2024-0819, 2025 WL 1119094, at *1, *6 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 16, 2025) (concluding that any error in failing to submit sentence enhancement factors to the jury pursuant to Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), was harmless where State's evidence " 'demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found' that appellant qualified [for the sentence enhancement]" (quoting Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 523 (Fla. 2007))); Ashford v. State, 5D2024-0070, 2025 WL 727808, at *1 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 7, 2025) (reviewing prison releasee reoffender sentence and concluding that if any Erlinger "error occurred here, such an error would be harmless"); Capra v. State, 403 So. 3d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025) ("[E]ven if the [habitual violent felony offender] sentence was rendered in error, the error is harmless on this record."); cf. Galindez, 955 So. 2d at 522-23 (holding that harmless error analysis applies to error alleged pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny). We therefore also affirm Alonso's sentence. Affirmed.

MORRIS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

Footnotes
1 Both Alonso and the State framed this argument as one of fundamental error. However, we need not conduct a fundamental error analysis as Alonso preserved this issue for appellate review by raising it in a motion in limine. See § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2023) ("If the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal." (emphasis added)); Suiter v. State, 2D2024-0337, 2025 WL 938602, at *1 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 28, 2025) ("The parties vigorously argued the motion in limine before trial. The trial court ruled. Mr. Suiter did not lodge an objection during [the witness's] trial testimony. . . . [A] contemporaneous objection would not have been out of line. But it was unnecessary." (underlined emphasis added) (citation omitted)); see also Cash v. State, 875 So. 2d 829, 832 n.3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ("[A] party is no longer required to renew an objection made in a motion in limine at trial." (citing § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2003))). Rather, we have concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making these evidentiary rulings. See Dessaure v. State, 891 So. 2d 455, 466 (Fla. 2004) ("A trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.").

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw