The State of Florida employs recidivism statute 775.084 known as "Habitual Offender Statute ". The statute has several factual determinations that need to be satisfied in order to operate. These facts, or "Certain circumstances ", are allowed per the statute to be determined by a judge under a preponderance of the evidence standard, instead of having these facts heard and determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Both of the following questions are incorporated in one argument and relate to the same issue of constitutionality and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments being denied to thousands of Florida defendants and petitioner.

1. Does Florida Statute 775.084 run afoul of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment 's and this courts precedent and how it was applied to petitioner, because it makes no provision for a jury to determine the "certain circumstances " requirement of 775.084 beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby entitling petitioner to a de novo resentencing, since the jury didn 't give the court the power to punish beyond the statutory maximum?

2. Can a harmless error analysis be employed to uphold a sentence that was imposed under a statute that is contrary to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by using Shepard Documents that are prone to mistakes?

Whether Florida Statute 775.084 violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by allowing a judge to determine 'certain circumstances' under a preponderance of evidence standard instead of a jury determining these facts beyond a reasonable doubt