Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed a habitual felony offender sentence on October 21, 2026, without deciding whether a jury must find the facts behind that label. The court said the defendant never preserved the point, and that even if he had, any error was harmless on his record. The case is Estrada v. State, No. 1D2024-2944.
The case. Alexander Estrada was convicted in Hamilton County of unlawful sexual activity with a minor. He challenged two parts of his sentence: the habitual felony offender designation, and a probation requirement that he pay for electronic monitoring.
The jury argument. Estrada relied on Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). He argued that a jury, not the judge, had to find beyond a reasonable doubt the facts that support a habitual felony offender designation. The opinion sets out how the point came up: – Estrada did not ask the jury to decide his habitual offender status. – He did not object when the State presented its evidence or when the judge made the required findings. His lawyer asked the court not to impose the enhanced statutory maximum. – He first raised the jury argument in a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) while the appeal was pending.
The court held that the rule 3.800(b) motion did not preserve the claim. A claim that a jury rather than a judge had to make the findings challenges the sentencing process, not the sentencing order. So it must be preserved by a contemporaneous objection. The court cited Shinault v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1390 (Fla. 1st DCA July 8, 2026), and Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008).
The court then said that even if the claim had been preserved, it would not win. Errors of this kind are reviewed for harmless error, which asks whether the record shows beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have made the findings. At sentencing the State had put in certified judgments and sentences for multiple prior felonies, fingerprint evidence identifying Estrada, Department of Corrections records showing a release on February 19, 2020, and clemency records showing none of the convictions had been set aside. The offense dated from between May 31, 2021 and May 2, 2022, within the five-year statutory period. Defense counsel conceded he could not dispute those facts, and Estrada identified no conflicting evidence. The court affirmed “without deciding whether Erlinger requires a jury to make the supporting findings.”
Paying for electronic monitoring. The judge ordered electronic monitoring as a special condition of probation but did not say at sentencing that Estrada would pay for it. Estrada asked the court to strike the payment requirement from special conditions 10 and 38 of the written order. The court refused. A condition of probation that a statute authorizes or requires can be in the written order even if the judge did not say it aloud, under State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996). Section 948.11(5), Florida Statutes (2024), says a person monitored by the Department of Corrections “shall pay the department for the electronic monitoring services as provided in s. 948.09(2).” Section 948.09(2) caps the payment at the full cost of monitoring and lets the Department exempt a person from all or part of it if a factor listed in subsection (3) exists. Under subsection (3), failing to make a required payment may be a ground for revocation. The court distinguished Lavender v. State, 203 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), which said monitoring costs had to be pronounced, because Lavender did not address those two statutes.
Practical reading (the author’s, not the court’s). The opinion treats the timing of the objection as the deciding point on the jury question. A defendant who wants a jury finding on habitual offender facts would object at the sentencing hearing itself, because a later rule 3.800(b) motion did not preserve it here.
Panel: Judges Ray (author), Lewis and M.K. Thomas. The opinion is not final until any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 is decided.
Source: Estrada v. State, No. 1D2024-2944 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 21, 2026). This article is general information, not legal advice.