RICKY R. PAYNE, 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.
Appellant lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the habitual felony offender statute under the single subject rule because he could have received the same sentence under the predecessor statute.
A defendant sentenced as a habitual felony offender lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the amended statute on single subject grounds when he could have received an identical sentence under the predecessor statute.
[1] A defendant sentenced under an amended habitual felony offender statute lacks standing to challenge its constitutionality on single subject grounds when the defendant wou…
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 intelligencePayne was sentenced as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes, for a first degree felony.…
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 Single Subject Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, who was sentenced as a habitual felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), challenges the constitutionality of chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, which amended the statute, on the ground that the act violated the single subject requirement included in Article II, Section 6, of the Florida Constitution. In support of his argument, appellant relies on Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 717 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1998), in which the Second District found chapter 95-182 to be unconstitutional under the single subject rule.
We conclude that appellant lacks standing to bring this constitutional challenge, because he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced for a first degree felony, rather than a life felony, and he could have received a life sentence for a first degree felony under the predecessor statute. See § 775.084(4)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Burton v. State, 616 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1993) (approving habitual felony offender sentence under amended statute that was found violative of the single subject rule, because defendant’s habitualization was not dependent upon amended provisions); Tims v. State, 592 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (affirming defendant’s sentence as a habitual violent felony offender, even though statute was found unconstitutional for violation of the single subject rule, because defendant would qualify as habitual violent felony offender under predecessor statute).
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, C.J., and ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson v. State, 756 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Payne v. State, 730 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Baker v. State, 714 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). DAVIS, BENTON, and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Tims v. State, 592 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Burton v. State, 616 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1993)