Arias v. State
Arias appealed denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion arguing that Florida's PRR and HVFO enhancement statutes are facially unconstitutional under Erlinger v. United States. The Third DCA affirmed, holding the claim was both unpreserved/not apparent on the face of the record and substantively foreclosed because Erlinger, like Apprendi, has not been held to apply retroactively on collateral review.
Key facts
- Arias appealed the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to vacate sentence, arguing that Florida's Penalty Recovery Restriction (PRR) and Habitual Violent Felony Offender (HVFO) enhancement statutes are facially unconstitutional under Erlinger v. United States.
- Arias did not object at sentencing to the judge (rather than a jury) determining his HVFO/PRR qualification, leaving the alleged constitutional error unpreserved and not apparent on the face of the record.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is useful to practitioners because it applies the Florida Supreme Court's 2025 decisions in Ford v. State and Tanzi v. State to squarely reject the increasingly common post-Erlinger argument that PRR/HVFO… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.