Hicks v. State
Hicks challenged his PRR sentence, arguing under Erlinger v. United States that a jury—not the judge—must find whether he was released from prison within three years of his new offense. The First District, following the Fifth District's Ashford decision, declined to reach the merits of whether Erlinger invalidates Florida's PRR sentencing procedure under § 775.082(9) and instead affirmed on harmless-error grounds, since Hicks and his counsel had conceded the release-timing fact below and DOC records confirmed it. Judge Winokur concurred separately, arguing Apprendi-type claims cannot properly be raised via rule 3.800(b), that Erlinger adds nothing new to Florida PRR analysis, but that Alleyne (not Erlinger) may actually require jury findings on PRR release-timing facts—an issue he expects the Florida Supreme Court to resolve in the pending Maye case.
Key facts
- Hicks was sentenced under Florida's primary release Rule (PRR) statute and challenged whether a jury—rather than a judge—must find that he was released from prison within three years of his new offense, citing Erlinger v. United States.
- At trial, Hicks and his counsel conceded the prior-release-timing fact, and Department of Corrections records confirmed the timing.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is useful to practitioners litigating the wave of post-Erlinger challenges to PRR and HFO sentencing enhancements, confirming the First District will resolve such claims on harmless-error grounds when the… — 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.