COURTNEY M. MOORE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Any potential Erlinger error in the sentencing enhancement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the State presented undisputed evidence of the defendant's prior convictions and release dates, and the defendant did not contest this evidence or the application of the enhancement.
[1] A claim of Erlinger error regarding sentencing enhancements is subject to harmless error analysis, and such error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when the State pre…
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 intelligenceCourtney M. Moore appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The appeal involved a potential Erlinger error related to sentenci…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
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 and Milton Hirsch, 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.
2
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
3 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).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (U.S. 2024)
- Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014)