Kenneth Lavon Holmes v. State of Florida

OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

KENNETH LAVON HOLMES,
Appellant,

Vv.

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.

No. 4D2024-1288
[January 7, 2026]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.
Lucie County; Michael J. Linn, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 562020CF003120A,
562020CF003224A, and 562021CF002602A.

Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public
Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Zi Jin Peter Chan,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted of five felony offenses arising from three
different cases. At the May 15, 2024 sentencing hearing, the trial court
designated the defendant as a habitual felony offender (“HFO”) and
sentenced him accordingly. Without obtaining the defendant’s consent or
holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court also ordered the defendant
to pay $200 for prosecution costs and $25 for investigation costs.

The defendant argues the trial court erred in two respects: (1) imposing
prosecution and investigation costs; and (2) designating and sentencing
the defendant as an HFO, because Florida’s habitual offender statute—
section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2020)—is unconstitutional under
Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024).

The State concedes error as to the trial court’s imposition of the $200
prosecution cost and $25 investigative cost in the absence of the
defendant’s agreement or the State’s request for those amounts.

Accordingly, we reverse the imposition of the $25 investigative cost and
$200 prosecution cost, and remand for entry of only the statutory-
minimum $100 prosecution cost. See Elliot v. State, 344 So. 3d 41, 42
(Fla. 4th DCA 2022); Sikich v. State, 337 So. 3d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA
2022).

The defendant’s challenge to his sentence under the habitual offender
statute fails. While the circuit court erred in not submitting the HFO
factors to the jury, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
See Jackson v. State, 410 So. 3d 4, 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). The State
introduced unrebutted evidence of the defendant’s qualifying
convictions—none of which involved a violation of section 893.13, Florida
Statutes (2020)—and when defendant was released from prison. Further
evidence established that the defendant had not been pardoned, nor had
any of his convictions been set aside. Also, the defendant did not object
to the application of the HFO enhancement at sentencing. Accordingly,
the record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury
would have found the defendant qualified as an HFO. See id. (citing
Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517, 523 (Fla. 2007)). We affirm the circuit
court on this issue.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
KUNTZ, C.J., CIKLIN and SHAW, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.