MATTHEW EDWARD ZINK v. STATE OF FLORIDA

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF F LORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-1626
Lower Tribunal No. 2021-CF-000977
_____________________________
MATTHEW E DWARD Z INK,
Appellant,
v.
S TATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County.
John McGowan, Judge.
March 6, 2026
PER CURIAM.
Matthew Edward Zink appeals the judgment and life sentence rendered on
July 22, 2024, after a jury found him guilty of lewd and lascivious molestation with
a victim less than 12 years of age. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in
not allowing a witness to testify regarding alleged child hearsay statements, and that
the trial court erred in sentencing him as a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”)
because the jury did not make any findings regarding his release date from prison.
As to the trial court’s finding that the child hearsay statements were inadmissible,
we affirm without further comment.

2
Relying on Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), Zink argues that
his sentence, which included a designation as a prison releasee reoffender, is illegal
because the trial court, rather than a jury, made the requisite finding concerning the
date he was released from custody on his prior conviction. While we have rejected
this argument in the past, even if accepted here, affirmance would still be required.
See Maye v. State, 368 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), review granted, No.
SC2023-1184, 2024 WL 1796831 (Fla. Apr. 25, 2024). 	As we held in Avalos v.
State, 419 So. 3d 299, 300 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025), this type of alleged error is subject
to a harmless error analysis, and since the offense for which Zink was convicted of
subjected him to a life sentence irrespective of any PRR designation, he is not
serving an enhanced sentence. 	Accordingly, the error, if any, is harmless on this
record beyond a reasonable doubt. 	See Scott v. State, 413 So. 3d 276, 278 (Fla 5th
DCA 2025) (“[B]ecause Scott is not serving an enhanced sentence in this case, the
error, if any, committed by the trial court when it imposed Scott’s HFO sentences is
harmless on this record beyond a reasonable doubt.”). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Brett S. Chase, Special Assistant Public Defender,
Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED