GILBERT EDWARD SPANN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 quashed the decision below and remanded for resentencing based on a prior ruling that a statute was unconstitutional.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a sentence based on a prior decision, which certified conflict with another district court's decision. The…
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 Criminal Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Spann v. State, 719 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), in which the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Gilbert Edward Spann’s violent career criminal sentence based on its prior decision in Higgs v. State, 695 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In so affirming, the Spann court certified conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Based on our decision in State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1999), in which we held unconstitutional chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, as violative of the single subject rule, we quash the decision below and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on September 12, 1996, the date on which Spann committed the underlying offense in this case.1 See Thompson, 750 So. 2d at 649 (remanding for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time the defendant committed her offenses).
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., dissents.
. We note that Spann has standing to raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, even assuming the window period for raising such a challenge closed on October 1, 1996, as determined by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Salters v. State, 731 So. 2d 826, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 749 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1999). Further, even though Spann failed to raise a single subject rule challenge in the trial court, we find that such challenge may be properly addressed in this case for the first time on appeal. Cf. Heggs v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S137, S138, S140 n. 4, - So. 2d -, -, - n.4, 2000 WL 178052 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2000); Nelson v. State, 748 So. 2d 237, 239-241 (Fla. 1999), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 950, 145 L.Ed.2d 825 (2000); State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1, 3-4 (Fla.1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999)
- Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Caison v. State, 695 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Nelson v. State, 748 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1999)
- Salters v. State, 731 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Vining v. Segal, 731 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Spann v. State, 719 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Gentles v. State, 719 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)