ALONSO v. STATE (2025)

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, ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 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, 144 S.Ct. 1840, 219 L.Ed.2d 451 (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, 407 So.3d 537, 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 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, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and its progeny). We therefore also affirm Alonso's sentence.

Affirmed.

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, 406 So.3d 1125, 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 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.”).

SLEET, Judge.

MORRIS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.