TERRY BROWN, 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.
Terry Brown appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court affirmed, holding that although chapter 89-280 violated the Florida Constitution's single subject rule during a specified window period, Brown's sentence was not affected by the amendments to section 775.084 because his offense fell within the window period but the amendments did not enhance his particular sentence.
The court held that Johnson does not apply to Brown because although his offense date fell within the prescribed window period, the amendments to section 775.084 contained in chapter 89-280 did not affect the basis or calculation of his habitual offender sentence.
[1] A statute's reenactment can cure a single subject rule violation if the reenactment occurs after the unconstitutional enactment and before the offense date.
[2] The window period for a single subject rule violation of chapter 89-280, as defined by the Florida Supreme Court, is from October 1, 1989, to May 2, 1991.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“chapter 89-280 violates article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution”
Establishes the constitutional violation underlying the case, cited from State v. Johnson
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown pled guilty to robbery with a weapon and aggravated battery as a habitual offender on February 8, 1990 in case no. 90-5523. The offense date fel…
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 Correction Of Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals an order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm. On January 14, 1993, The Florida Supreme Court held that “chapter 89-280 violates article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution.” State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla.1993). The court farther concluded that “chapter 91^4’s biennial reenactment of chapter 89-280, effective May 2, 1991, cured the single subject violation as it applied to all defendants sentenced under section 775.084 whose offenses were committed after that date.” Id. The court defined the window period of the effective violation of the single subject rule to be from October 1, 1989 to May 2, 1991, and stated that resentencing would apply only to those defendants affected by the amendments to section 775.084 contained in chapter 89-280. For this reason, the decision in Johnson does not apply in the instant case.
The defendant in the instant case pled guilty to a term of years as an habitual offender on the charge of robbery with a weapon and aggravated battery in ease no. 90-5523 committed February 8, 1990, a date within the prescribed time period. However, while in Johnson the addition of aggravated battery to the list of prior enumerated felonies was a portion of the amended statute as well as the basis of Johnson’s enhanced habitual violent felony offender sentence, see Johnson, 616 So. 2d at 4, in the ease sub judice, the amendment did not affect the defendant’s sentence based upon the charges listed above. See Freeman v. State, 616 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (habitual offender sentence would be reversed only if defendant was affected by the amendments to section 775.084 contained in chapter 89-280). Accordingly, we conclude that defendant’s motion was properly denied.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baxter v. State, 769 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…tachments to its order, denied Baxter’s claims. We reverse. A challenge to a sentence imposed under the 1995 sentencing guidelines during the window of unconstitutionality is a legitimate issue to raise by rule 3.800(a) motion. See Brown v. State, 662 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Additionally, challenges questioning whether a predicate offense giving rise to habitualization is properly qualifying can be raised by rule 3.800(a) motion. See White v. State, 666 So. 2d 895 (Fla.1996). As Baxter stated cogniza…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Freeman v. State, 616 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)