Case Name: Alexander L. GREEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2019-04-03
Citations: 271 So. 3d 144
Docket Number: No. 3D18-2239
Parties: Alexander L. GREEN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 271
Pages: 144–144

Head Matter:
Alexander L. GREEN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D18-2239
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Opinion filed April 3, 2019
Alexander L. Green, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Connolly v. State, 172 So.3d 893, 903-04 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that "technical defects in a charging document are treated differently than the failure to allege an essential element of the crime. An indictment that wholly omits an essential element of a crime is a fundamental defect that may be raised at any time because the indictment fails to charge a crime when an essential element is omitted. Use or possession of a firearm, however, is not an essential element of second degree murder, but rather, it may serve to allow for a reclassification of the second degree murder from a first degree felony to a life felony or as an enhancement of the sentence imposed") (internal footnote and citation omitted). See also Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla. 2007) (holding that an Apprendi/ Blakely error is subject to a harmless error analysis); Robinson v. State, 215 So.3d 1262, 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
See Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) ; Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).