Jett v. State of Florida

FIRST DISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2023-3158
_____________________________
DALTON REID J ETT ,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF F LORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
Stephen S. Everett, Judge.
December 10, 2025
PER C URIAM.
Dalton 	Reid 	Jett 	appeals 	his 	judgment 	and 	sentence 	for
burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. We affirm and write only
to 	address 	his 	claim 	that 	his 	sentence 	as 	a 	prison 	releasee
reoffender (“PRR”) is unconstitutional. Jett contends that the trial
court 	committed 	Alleyne* 	error 	by 	making 	the 	factual
* 	Alleyne 	v. 	United 	States, 	570 	U.S. 	99, 	114–15 	(2013)
(reaffirming 	that 	“[w]hen 	a 	finding 	of 	fact 	alters 	the 	legally
prescribed punishment so as to aggravate it, the fact necessarily

2
determination necessary to establish his PRR status—specifically,
that he committed the burglary within three years of his release
from a prior term of imprisonment. Even if error occurred, we are
satisfied that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
“A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when
an appellate court determines after a review of the complete record
that prejudicial error occurred . . . .” § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. The
error alleged here is harmless if the record establishes beyond a
reasonable doubt that “a rational jury,” if properly instructed,
“would have found” the fact necessary to qualify Jett for the
sentencing enhancement. See State v. Manago, 375 So. 3d 190, 199
(Fla. 2023) (quoting Williams v. State, 242 So. 3d 280, 290 (Fla.
2018) (setting forth the harmless error test for Alleyne violations)).
In applying this standard, we consider “the weight of the evidence
in the record, including credibility concerns, and any conflicting
evidence” that bears on the fact in question. Manago, 375 So. 3d at
199.
On this record, there can be no reasonable doubt that Jett
qualified as a PRR. The State introduced a certified copy of the
Department of Corrections Crime and Time Report, referred to by
the prosecutor and trial court as the “penitentiary packet” or “pen
pack.” That document showed that Jett was released from prison
less than one month before committing the burglary in this case.
The 	State’s 	fingerprint 	analysis 	expert 	testified 	that 	the
fingerprints on the pen pack matched Jett’s fingerprints, and the
expert’s 	supervisor 	independently 	reviewed 	and 	verified 	the
match.
Based 	on 	the 	uncontroverted 	evidence, 	any 	error 	in 	not
submitting the PRR determination to a jury was harmless beyond
a reasonable doubt. See Hicks v. State, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2238a
(Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 15, 2025); Dowdell v. State, 50 Fla. L. Weekly
D2236c (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 15, 2025); McGlaun v. State, 50 Fla. L.
Weekly D2178a (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 1, 2025); see also Neder v. U.S.,
527 	U.S. 	1, 	19 	(1999) 	(“[W]here 	a 	defendant 	did 	not, 	and
apparently could not, bring forth facts contesting the omitted
forms a constituent part of a new offense and must be submitted
to the jury”).

3
element, answering the question whether the jury verdict would
have been the same absent the error does not fundamentally
undermine the purposes of the jury trial guarantee.”).
A FFIRMED.
R OWE and R AY, JJ., concur; TANENBAUM, J., concurs with opinion.
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
TANENBAUM, J., concurring.
There are several bases for us to affirm, including the one set
out in the majority opinion. The more straightforward of them,
however, would have been that the asserted error was not properly
preserved by the defendant’s rule 3.800 motion. Yet the supreme
court’s decision in Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014) says to
the contrary. Under the analysis set out by Judge Winokur’s
concurring opinion in Hicks v. State, No. 1D2024-1300, 2025 WL
2921590, at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 15, 2025), a so-called Apprendi
error (or for that matter, an Alleyne or Erlinger error) nevertheless
is 	a 	sentencing 	process 	error 	that 	must 	be 	preserved
contemporaneously at sentencing—failing which, its consideration
only could be under an authorized fundamental-error analysis. Cf.
Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 574 (Fla. 2008). I agree with
Judge Winokur’s analysis on that point, and like him, hope that
the supreme court conclusively addresses the viability of Plott in
its review of Maye v. State, 368 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023),
rev. granted, No. SC2023-1184, 2024 WL 1796831 (Fla. Apr. 25,
2024)—especially 	in 	the 	face 	of 	its 	earlier 	(and 	arguably
conflicting) holding in Jackson. Jackson, in the end, better reflects
the history and purpose behind the court’s adoption of that rule in
1996. See Emerson v. State, 412 So. 3d 917, 932–36 (Fla. 1st DCA
2025) 	(Tanenbaum, 	J., 	concurring) 	(treating 	Jackson 	and
describing how the rule’s adoption was primarily to ensure that a

4
defendant had at least one opportunity to preserve a claimed error
in the sentence itself (rather than the process producing the
sentence)).
_____________________________
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant
Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
James 	Uthmeier, 	Attorney 	General, 	and 	Adam 	B. 	Wilson,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.