STEVE ANTHONY TIMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Steve Anthony Tims was convicted as a habitual violent felony offender for multiple offenses including grand theft, aggravated battery, and armed robbery. The court affirmed his convictions and sentences, holding that he could not challenge the constitutionality of the amended Habitual Felony Offender Act because he would qualify as a habitual violent felony offender under the prior 1988 statutory version.
Tims could not challenge the constitutionality of Chapter 89-280 because he would qualify as a habitual violent felony offender under the 1988 version of the statute. The narrow holding of Cecil B. Johnson applies only to defendants whose prior offenses were added by the amendment and who could not qualify under the prior statute. Tims' convictions and sentences are affirmed in all respects.
[1] A defendant cannot challenge the constitutionality of a statutory amendment if they qualify for habitual violent felony offender status under the prior version of the sta…
[2] A defendant lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statutory amendment if their prior offenses would not qualify them for habitual violent felony offender…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the narrow holding of Cecil B. Johnson, is predicated on two factors: (1) appellant Johnson had standing to challenge the constitutionality of Chapter 89-280 because his offense was committed within the time period between the October 1, 1989, effective date of the 1989 amendments to the habitual felony offender provisions and their re-enactment, effective May 2, 1991”
Establishes the limited scope of the Cecil B. Johnson precedent regarding the constitutional challenge window
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Tims was convicted and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender for numerous offenses in five consolidated cases, including grand the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standing To Challenge Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Steve Anthony Tims, was convicted and sentenced as an habitual violent felony offender for numerous offenses, in-eluding grand theft, aggravated battery of a law enforcement officer and armed robbery, in five separate cases consolidated for purposes of appeal. We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences in all respects, and in doing so, write to discuss appellant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Habitual Felony Offender Act, Section 775.084, Florida Statutes, and to distinguish this court’s recent opinion in Cecil B. Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
In Cecil B. Johnson, this court held Chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, amending section 775.084, the habitual felony offender statute, a violation of the one-subject rule of the Florida Constitution.1 We note, however, that the narrow holding of Cecil B. Johnson, is predicated on two factors: (1) appellant Johnson had standing to challenge the constitutionality of Chapter 89-280 because his offense was committed within the time period between the October 1, 1989, effective date of the 1989 amendments to the habitual felony offender provisions and their re-enactment, effective May 2, 1991, as a part of the Florida Statutes, See State v. Combs, 388 So. 2d 1029 (Fla.1980); (2) appellant Johnson could only be classified an habitual violent felony offender under the amended statute, as the offense which served as a basis for his classification as an habitual violent felony offender, a 1987 conviction for aggravated battery, was added by Chapter 89-280 to the list of offenses which will support classification as an habitual violent felony offender. § 775.084(l)(b)l.k. Fla.Stat. (1989).
In the present case, although appellant Tims’ present offenses were committed, within the “window” period described in Cecil B. Johnson, appellant’s prior offenses are such that he would qualify as an habitual violent felony offender under the 1988 statutory provisions. Because appellant would qualify as an habitual violent felony offender under the 1988 version of the statute, appellant may not challenge the constitutionality of Chapter 89-280. See McNeil v. State, 588 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); King v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wright v. State, 579 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Accordingly, we affirm.
SHIVERS, ZEHMER and MINER, JJ., concur. . Art. Ill, § 6, Fla.Const. (1968), provides in part: "Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Freeman v. State, 616 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ef reiterating his argument, to which the state responds that the motion was correctly denied in that Freeman failed to allege that he could not have been classified as an habitual offender without the unconstitutional amendments. See Tims v. State, 592 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA1992) (if defendant would qualify as an habitual offender under the 1988 version of the statute, he may not challenge the constitutionality of Chapter 89-280). The state also argues that the trial court was correct on the merits, citing…
-
Johnson v. State, 627 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…sion of the statute. Miffin v. State, 615 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (affirming enhanced sentence [*115] where application of statutory amendments did not appear to prejudice defendant bringing “Johnson” challenge of 1989 statute); Tims v. State, 592 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). From our review of Appellant’s record and the sentencing transcript, we find that Appellant met all of the prerequisites for habitual felony offender classification under section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). McCa…
-
Alphonso Brown v. State, 604 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…-280, Laws of Florida, which had amended the 1988 version of the habitual felony offender statute, violated the constitutional single-subject rule. We find appellant’s challenge to be without merit and affirm this point on appeal. See Tims v. State, 592 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In Tims, we said our narrow holding in Johnson was predicated on two factors, only one of which applied to Tims: the occurrence of his present offenses within the time period when Chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, applied. Becaus…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Wright v. State, 579 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Bush Wade Holland v. State, 585 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- McNEIL v. State, 588 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- State v. Combs, 388 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1980)