ROOSEVELT BRISTER, A/K/A JAMES BROOKER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Defendant's sentence as a habitual violent felony offender was valid because, although the amended statute was unconstitutional, he met the criteria under the pre-amended version and knowingly agreed to the sentence as part of his plea bargain.
A defendant sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender under an unconstitutional amendment may be resentenced under the pre-amended statute if he met its criteria and knowingly agreed to the sentence in his plea bargain.
[1] When an amendment to a statute is declared unconstitutional, the statute as it existed prior to amendment remains effective and may be applied if the defendant meets its…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender with nine prior felonies, and the offense date fell within the period when the amended 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Challenge To Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant has standing to challenge his sentence because the date on which his offense was committed falls between October 1, 1989 and May 2, 1991, the time established in State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993) where the habitual violent felony offender statute, as amended, was determined to be unconstitutional as violative of the single subject rule.
In the instant case, the transcript is clear that defendant agreed to his plea fully aware that he was being sentenced as an habitual violent felony offender. It is true that a criminal defendant cannot by virtue of a plea bargain confer upon a court the authority to impose an illegal sentence. Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368, 1370 (Fla.1991). At the same time, when an amendment to a statute is declared unconstitutional, the statute as it existed pri-or to amendment remains effective. Miffin v. State, 615 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Here, the state proffered to the court that the defendant had nine prior felonies. Thus, defendant met the criteria for habitual offender status under the pre-amended version of the statute, Brown v. State, 609 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), review denied, 618 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.1993) and the agreement was a valid plea negotiated by the defendant with full knowledge that he was being sentenced as an habitual offender as a part of his bargain struck with the state. Basilisco v. State, 593 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B.H. v. State, 645 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1994)…al act of striking the new statutory language automatically revives the predecessor unless it, too, would be unconstitutional.5 State ex rel. Boyd v. Green, 355 So. 2d 789 (Fla.1978); Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1952); Brister v. State, 622 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Rankin v. State, 620 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Miffin v. State, 615 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). As courts in other states have noted, this rule generally is applicable only where the loss of the invalid statutory languag…
-
Carson v. State, 37 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…457, 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that a defendant may not plead to an illegal sentence); Hollybrook v. State, 795 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (same); Gifford v. State, 744 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (same); Brister v. State, 622 So. 2d 552, 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (same). In this case, it is unclear from the record whether Appellant’s sentence is illegal. I, therefore, would reverse the trial court’s summary denial of Appellant’s motion and remand for the attachment of portions of the…
-
Emery Harvey v. State, 623 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Brister v. State, 622 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).…
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
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Myren Wayne Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1991)
- Miffin v. State, 615 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Thad McGillery Brown v. State, 609 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Basilisco v. State, 593 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)