TURNAGE v. STATE (2025)

Affirmed.

James Perry Turnage Jr. appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion arguing that his prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”) sentence is illegal because a judge, not a jury, made the necessary findings, relying primarily on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 144 S.Ct. 1840, 219 L.Ed.2d 451 (2024).¹ We must affirm the denial based on our binding decision in Simmons v. State, 332 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022), which upheld the constitutionality of the PRR statute. See also Maye v. State, 368 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), review granted, No. SC2023-1184, 2024 WL 1796831 (Fla. Apr. 25, 2024). But see Denson v. State, 401 So.3d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025) (Eisnaugle, J., concurring specially) (explaining why Simmons is wrongly decided).

FOOTNOTES

1.   In Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90, 95 (Fla. 2014), our supreme court held that Apprendi violations are cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. While we are bound by Plott, rule 3.800(a) is an odd fit given that Florida's courts are also required to employ a harmless error analysis, Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 522–23 (Fla. 2007), and the rule on preservation, McGregor v. State, 789 So. 2d 976, 977 (Fla. 2001).

Per Curiam.

Wallis and Harris, JJ., concur. Eisnaugle, J., concurring specially with opinion.