TONY FORD, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Foster v. State, 861 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
  …2d 1248, 1250 (Fla.1985) (construing statute that "clarified the manner in which presumptive parole release dates [were] calculated”); see Barns, 768 So. 2d at 530-33; Matthews v. State, 760 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); State v. Nuckolls, 606 So. 2d 1205, 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). But see State v. Eldredge, 801 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (rejecting contention that amendments to a criminal statute "merely 'clarified' existing law, and should therefore be applied retroactively”); Rock v. Stat…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• MacChione v. State, 123 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
  …er, such amendments are understood as clarifying or explaining the legislative intent that animated enactment of the original statute, and usually do not fit within the parameters of any accepted category of ex post facto law. See State v. Nuckolls, 606 So. 2d 1205, 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). If the 2010 amendment is a clarification of the statute as originally enacted in 1913, as the State contends, Mac-chione’s conviction must be affirmed. There are factors the courts apply when determining whether a statuto…
• Matthews v. State, 760 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
  …n of a statute by the legislative department goes far to remove doubt as to the meaning of the law. The court has the right and the duty, in arriving at the correct meaning of a prior statute to consider subsequent legislation.”); State v. Nuckolls, 606 So. 2d 1205, 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (explaining that “Florida case law is well established that subsequent legislation adopted to clarify the legislature’s intention is properly considered in construing a prior statute.”); Rowles v. Department of Bus. Regulat…