Juan Carlos Alvarado-Balmaceda v. State of Florida

── Juan Carlos Alvarado-Balmaceda v. State of Florida ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 3, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D24-0977 Lower Tribunal No. F23-17332 ________________ Juan Carlos Alvarado-Balmaceda, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Anne Stuzin, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.  Juan Carlos Alvarado-Balmaceda (“Alvarado”) appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary and petit theft. Alvarado argues that pursuant to Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) 1 his enhanced sentence is constitutionally invalid because the trial court, not a jury, made the required factual findings that he is a habitual violent felony offender (“HVFO”). We affirm. This Court has held that Erlinger errors are subject to harmless error review. See Madison v. State, 51 Fla L. Weekly D875, (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 29, 2026); Mesa v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D503 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 18, 2026); Tucker v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D170 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 28, 2026). “A harmless error analysis in this context looks to ‘whether the record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury’ would have found the requisite facts.” Avalos v. State, 419 So. 3d 299, 300 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (quoting Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 523 (Fla. 2007)). “Indeed, if the record plainly and unequivocally establishes that the defendant 1 While this appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Erlinger. Prior to filing his initial brief, Alvarado filed a motion to correct sentencing error in the trial court. See Fla. R. Crim P. 3.800(b)(2) (“If an appeal is pending, . . . [t]he motion [to correct a sentencing error] . . . must be served before the party’s first brief is served.”). In the motion, Alvarado argued that Erlinger requires a jury to make the required factual findings that the HVFO statute applies. Alvarado’s motion also argued that “the State failed to offer evidence indicating that [his] convictions had not been set aside.” The trial court denied the motion. 2 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.” Madison, 51 Fla L. Weekly D875, at *1. At sentencing, the State introduced evidence of Alvarado’s prior conviction2 establishing that he qualified as a habitual violent felony offender under section 775.084(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Alvarado did not contend that the prior conviction was not his, that the date of the prior conviction was incorrect, or that the prior conviction had been set aside or pardoned. At the hearing, Alvarado’s counsel conceded that the State “has established that . . . Alvarado has one qualifying prior.” However, Alvarado’s counsel argued at sentencing that the State failed to offer evidence indicating: (1) the date of Alvarado’s release from probation; and (2) Alvarado’s prior conviction had not been set aside or pardoned. First, the State provided evidence that on August 7, 2020, Alvarado was sentenced to one year of probation for the prior conviction. Because the burglaries and theft for which Alvarado was to be sentenced in this case occurred just over 2 The trial court withheld adjudicati