JOHN JOHN, 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.
Florida Supreme Court quashed a violent career criminal sentence and remanded for resentencing under the valid laws in effect on the date of the offense, following its decision in State v. Thompson regarding constitutional defects in sentencing legislation.
A defendant sentenced under a violent career criminal statute may challenge the constitutionality of the sentencing law and must be resentenced under the valid laws in effect at the time of the offense.
[1] A defendant has standing to raise a single subject rule challenge to sentencing legislation even if the window period for raising such a challenge has closed, where the c…
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 intelligenceJohn committed an underlying offense on June 29, 1996, and received a violent career criminal sentence. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed th…
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.
We have for review John v. State, 728 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in which the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed John John’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 John 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. See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Based on our decision in State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999), we quash the decision below and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on June 29, 1996, the date on which John 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 John 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).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Salters v. State, 731 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Vining v. Segal, 731 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- John v. State, 728 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)