LEON LEE, 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.
The court affirmed the sentence, finding the appellant's challenge to the statute's constitutionality moot due to a subsequent reenactment.
Leon Lee was sentenced as a violent career criminal under a statute that was later challenged for violating the single subject provision of the Florid…
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 Violent Career Criminal Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Leon Lee appeals his sentence as a violent career criminal under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1997), on the ground that chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida (the “Officer Evelyn Gort and Fallen Officers Career Criminal Act of 1995”), which created that category of sentence, violated the single subject provision of the Florida Constitution. We affirm.
Assuming for purposes of discussion that there was a violation of the single subject rule,* the only defendants who would be adversely affected are persons sentenced as violent career criminals with offense dates of October 1, 1995 through May 23, 1997. Effective May 24, 1997, the biennial reenactment of the Florida Statutes cured any violation of the single subject rule. See ch. 97-97, Laws of Fla. “The reenactment has the effect of adopting as the official statutory law of the state those portions of the statutes that are carried forward from the preceding adopted statutes. Once reenacted as a portion of the Florida Statutes, a chapter law is no longer subject to challenge on the grounds that it violates the single subject requirements of Article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution.” State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla.1993).
Because appellant’s offense date was July 12, 1997, there is no basis for a challenge to his sentence based on the single subject requirement. For this reason we decline to certify conflict with Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 717 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1998).
Affirmed.
*
This court, has held that there was no single subject violation. See Valdes v. State, 728 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Holloway v. State, 712 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA), review granted, 727 So. 2d 906 (Fla.1998); Higgs v. State, 695 So. 2d 872, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Contra Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 717 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1998).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Jones v. State, 747 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…7 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1998). Therefore, I believe that this court should recede from its opinion in Higgs v. State, 695 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), and its progeny,1 reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. . See Lee v. State, 739 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Williams, 731 So. 2d at 99; Valdes, 728 So. 2d at 1225; McGowan v. State, 725 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Russell v. State, 725 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Waldo v. State, 728 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Robbins v. Stat…
-
State v. Sercey, 825 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…amount of drugs can explain impaired conduct.” It asserted that the expert opinions on impairment were scientific, not legal, and challenged the argument that the opinions “would invade the ultimate province of the jury,” citing Gutierrez v. State, 739 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). It stated that it would establish “by the required burden of preponderance that the methodology employed by the State’s experts in this case is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, that the results obtained th…
-
Cazeau v. State, 740 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…So. 2d 538 (Fla.1998). Therefore, I believe that this court should recede from its opinion in Higgs v. State, 695 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), and its progeny 1, reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing. . See Lee v. State, 739 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Williams v. State, 731 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Valdes, 728 So. 2d at 1225; McGowan v. State, 725 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Russell v. State, 725 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Waldo v. State, 728 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d D…
Previewing 3 of 13 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)
- Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Caison v. State, 695 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Robertson v. State, 712 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Valdes v. State, 728 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)