George Madison v. State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed April 29, 2026.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
                             ________________

                             No. 3D23-1575
                      Lower Tribunal No. F18-22887
                          ________________


                            George Madison,
                                  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 Shannon Hemmendinger,
Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

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


Before SCALES, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LOBREE, JJ.

     SCALES, C.J.
         George Madison appeals his sentences for kidnapping, carjacking,

robbery, and two counts of fraudulent use or possession of personal

identification information. Madison argues that his sentences for the

offenses, which were enhanced in accordance with section 775.084 of the

Florida Statutes, are unconstitutional under Erlinger v. United States, 602

U.S. 821 (2024). Because any trial court error in not allowing the jury to

decide enhancement issues was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we

affirm that portion of the sentencing order enhancing Madison’s sentences.

We reverse, however, that portion of the written sentencing order that does

not conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncements at the sentencing

hearing, and we remand for the trial court to enter a corrected, written

sentencing order.

    I.     Relevant Background

         While Madison’s plenary appeal was pending, the United States

Supreme Court decided Erlinger. Prior to filing his initial brief,1 Madison filed

in the lower proceeding a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2)

motion to correct his sentence.2 In Madison’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion,


1
 Madison’s appellate briefs in this appeal do not challenge his underlying
convictions.
2
 Rule 3.800(b)(2) permits a defendant or the State, during the pendency of
a plenary appeal, to file a motion in the trial court to correct an alleged

                                       2
Madison asserted that his sentences are unlawful because (i) the trial court,

rather than a jury, determined that Madison met the requirements for

designation as a habitual violent felony offender (“HVFO”) and a three-time

violent felony offender (“3xVFO”), and (ii) the trial court made these factual

findings by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a

reasonable doubt. Madison’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion also argued that the

lower court’s written sentencing order failed to comport with the court’s oral

findings at the sentencing hearing. Because the trial court did not rule on

Madison’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion within sixty days, it was deemed denied.

See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). The lawfulness of Madison’s sentence

and the trial court’s denial of Madison’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion are the

subject of this appeal.

   II.     Analysis

         A. Alleged Erlinger Error

           1. Harmless error standard




sentencing error, so long as the initial brief has not yet been filed. When such
a motion is filed, notice must be provided to the appellate court, and the time
for filing of the initial brief is tolled until the trial court adjudicates the motion
and the record is supplemented as provided in Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.140(f)(6). See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2). Implicit in rules
3.800(b)(2) and 9.140(f)(6), is that the plenary appeal may include review of
the trial court’s disposition of the motion.

                                          3
     As this Court has recently held, Erlinger errors are subject to harmless

error review. See Mesa v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D503, 2026 WL 758991,

at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 18, 2026); Tucker v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D170,

2026 WL 216386, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 28, 2026). An Erlinger error is

harmless where the record demonstrates, beyond a reasonable doubt, that,

had the enhancement issues been submitted to a jury, a rational jury would

have found that the defendant qualified for an enhanced sentence under

section 775.084. Mesa, 2026 WL 758991, at *1. Indeed, if the record plainly

and unequivocally establishes that the defendant qualifies for the

enhancement, it is not necessary for the court to delve into the Erlinger

constitutional issue, because any resulting error would be harmless beyond

a reasonable doubt. Id.; Tucker, 2026 WL 216386, at *1.

        2. Application of harmless error standard to this case

     At sentencing, the State, without contemporaneous objection,

presented evidence of Madison’s prior convictions establishing that, under

the statute, Madison qualified as an HVFO and a 3xVFO. Madison presented

no conflicting evidence. The trial court accepted the State’s unrebutted

evidence, and sentenced Madison as a 3xVFO on the kidnapping,




                                     4
carjacking, and robbery offenses, and as an HVFO on the two counts of

fraudulent use or possession of personal identification information.3

      Madison did not contemporaneously object to the sufficiency of the

State’s evidence prior to being sentenced by the trial court. Nor did Madison

argue in his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion that the State’s evidence was insufficient

to qualify him as an HVFO and a 3xVFO. Madison’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion

argued simply that a jury, rather than a judge, should have made the

enhancement findings beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Under these circumstances, we need not reach the merits of Madison’s

Erlinger claim because any error in the trial court, rather than the jury, making

the enhancement findings under section 775.084 was harmless beyond a

reasonable doubt. Given the unrebutted evidence supporting enhancement



3
 The sentencing hearing transcript reflects that the trial court sentenced
Madison as follows:

    • Kidnapping: Madison designated a 3xVFO and sentenced to life in
      prison with a life minimum mandatory;
    • Carjacking: Madison designated a 3xVFO and sentenced to thirty
      years in prison with a thirty-year minimum mandatory;
    • Robbery: Madison designated a 3xVFO and sentenced to fifteen years
      in prison with a fifteen-year minimum mandatory;
    • Fraudulent use or possession of personal identification information
      (two counts): Madison designated an HVFO and sentenced to five
      years in prison with a five-year minimum mandatory, on both counts.

    The trial court ordered that the sentences run concurrently.

                                       5
established at sentencing, a rational jury would have found, beyond a

reasonable doubt, that Madison qualified for the enhanced sentence. See

Mesa, 2026 WL 758991, at *1; Tucker, 2026 WL 216386, at *1. We therefore

affirm Madison’s sentences.

      B. Discrepancy in Written Sentencing Order

      The lower court’s written sentencing order mistakenly reflects that the

trial court (i) designated Madison a violent career criminal on the kidnapping,

carjacking, and robbery offenses, rather than as a 3xVFO, and (ii) sentenced

Madison to life in prison with a thirty-year minimum mandatory on the

carjacking offense, rather than the orally imposed sentence of thirty-years in

prison with a thirty-year minimum mandatory. As the State commendably

concedes, the written sentencing order must be corrected to conform to the

lower court’s oral pronouncements at the sentencing hearing. See Rowan v.

State, 396 So. 3d 634, 635-36 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024). We, therefore, reverse

this aspect of the lower court’s denial of Madison’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion

and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected, written sentencing order

that conforms to the trial court’s oral pronouncements. Id. at 636.

            Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.




                                      6