DYRON TUCKER

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 28, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-277 Lower Tribunal No. F20-4475B ________________

Dyron Tucker, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Deborah Prager, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and GORDO, JJ.

LOGUE, J.

Dyron Tucker appeals his convictions and sentences for attempted

1 While Tucker’s appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). Prior to filing his initial brief in this appeal, Tucker filed in the lower tribunal a motion to correct sentencing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). In his motion, he asserted his sentence was unlawful under Erlinger because the trial court, not a jury, determined that he met the requirements for designation as a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”) and a violent career criminal (“VCC”). Tucker requested that the trial court grant the motion and order a resentencing hearing without the PRR and VCC enhancements. The trial court denied Tucker’s 3.800(b)(2) motion, and then, Tucker filed his initial brief.

2 See also Flournoy v. State, 415 So. 3d 806, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025) (holding that “assuming that the trial court erred by making the findings necessary to impose the [habitual felony offender] and PRR enhancements, rather than leaving those findings to the jury, the error was harmless,” where the State met its “burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury’s failure to make the necessary findings for application of the [habitual felony offender] and PRR enhancements did not contribute to Flournoy’s sentence” because, among other things, Flournoy’s certified department of corrections packet, “which detail[ed] all of his prior offenses and release dates, was filed below and is contained in [the appellate] record”; “Flournoy did not dispute his prior record or release dates at sentencing”; and “defense counsel conceded at sentencing that Flournoy qualified for the PRR enhancement”); Moore v. State, 418 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (affirming based on harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, citing, in part, to Flournoy and Jackson v. State, 410 So. 3d 4, 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)); Jackson, 410 So. 3d at 11 (finding Erlinger error but concluding it “was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” where 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”; Jackson “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”); Moore v. State, No. 5D24-1271, 2025 WL 3491647, *1 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec.⁵, 2025) (“Appellant claims that having the judge rather than a jury determine the underlying facts of whether he qualified for designation and sentencing as a Habitual Violent Felony Offender pursuant to section 775.084(1)(b), Florida Statutes, is contrary to Erlinger . . . , and thus unconstitutional. We affirm on this issue because if there was any error regarding the application of Erlinger, the record before this Court demonstrates conclusively that it was harmless error.”); Gray v. State, 422 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (affirming without deciding whether sentence is unconstitutional under Erlinger because any error was harmless); see also Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 850 (Robert,

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 Armed Career Criminal Act] are subject to harmless error review.”).