ERIC A. RANDALL, 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.
A sentence as a habitual offender based on amendments to section 775.084 by chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, for a crime committed between October 1, 1989, and May 2, 1991, is illegal because the amendments violated the one-subject rule.
Appellant was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender based on an offense committed between the effective date of the 1989 amendments to the h…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises a number of issues on appeal, only one of which has merit. The appellant raises the question of whether chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida, which amended section 775.084, the habitual felony offender provision, violates the one-subject rule of the Florida Constitution. The offense which was utilized to qualify appellant as a habitual violent felony offender, aggravated battery, was included in the statute as an offense which may be utilized in determining habitual offender status by chapter 89-280, Laws of Florida. The instant offense was committed within the time period between October 1, 1989, the effective date of the 1989 amendments to the habitual offender statute, and the reenactment of the statute, May 2, 1991. In Johnson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), this court held that section 775.084 as amended by 89-280, Laws of Florida, violated the single-subject rule; therefore, a sentence as a habitual offender based upon the 1989 amendments for a crime which was committed within the period of October 1, 1989, to May 2, 1991, is illegal.
The state argues that the issue was not properly preserved for appeal. This argument was rejected in Claybourne v. State, 600 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Based upon the holding in Clayboume, supra, the appellant’s habitual violent felony offender sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
As this court did in Claybourne, supra, we certify the following question to the supreme court as a question of great public importance:
WHETHER THE CHAPTER 89-280 AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 775.084, FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1988), WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR TO THEIR RE-ENACTMENT AS PART OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, BECAUSE THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE SINGLE-SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
ZEHMER, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donahue v. State, 616 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…er status. The state argues that this issue was not properly preserved for appeal. This argument was rejected in Claybourne v. State, 600 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), approved, State v. Claybourne, 616 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1993), and Randall v. State, 601 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Appellant’s habitual violent felony offender sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. BOOTH, KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.…
-
Brady Allen Lowe v. State, 612 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…statute is entitled to raise the propriety of an habitual offender sentence for the first time on appeal. Claybourne v. State, 600 So. 2d 516, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). See also Pride v. State, 603 So. 2d 24, 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Randall v. State, 601 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The amended version of the statute broadened the category of prior convictions which could be considered as qualifying offenses, and provided that any combination of two or more felonies in this state or other qualified of…
-
Randall v. State, 616 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1993)…OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Randall v. State, 601 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which the district court addressed the same question we recently answered in State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993).1 In accordance with our decision in Johnson, we approve the decision of the district court in the instant…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Claybourne v. State, 600 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)