Whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury, rather than a judge, to determine a defendant's status as a habitual felony offender under Florida law

No question identified. : BACKGROUND In June 2024, this Court held, in no uncertain terms, that “[vJirtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea)[,]” and “a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.” Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 834, 838 (2024) (cleaned up). In the trial court, Petitioner is charged with a second-degree felony, and the State has filed its notice of the State’s intent to seek that the Court declare the Defendant to be a habitual felony offender under Fla. Stat. § 775.084. On its face, Erlinger, which concerned a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act, directly applies to Section 775.084 generally. See, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 137 (2010) (“Florida has a statute similar to the Armed Career Criminal Act that imposes mandatory-minimum sentences upon ‘violent career criminal|[s],’ Fla. Stat. § 775.084(4)(d) (2007), defined to mean persons who have three convictions for certain felonies, including any ‘forcible felony,’ § After the trial court rebuffed Petitioner’s attempt to vindicate the right to trial by jury,? he sought a writ of mandamus with the Florida intermediate court of appeal, and then the Florida Supreme Court, in accordance with this Court’s clear and longheld position that “the right to grant mandamus to require jury trial where it has 2 See