STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
SHAWN SEAY, 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 Florida Supreme Court approved the Second District Court of Appeal's reversal of Shawn Seay's violent career criminal sentence, holding that the statute authorizing such sentences violated Florida's single subject rule and was unconstitutional.
The Court approved the reversal of Seay's violent career criminal sentence and remanded the case for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on January 14, 1996, when Seay committed the underlying offense. The statute was held unconstitutional under the single subject rule.
[1] A statute found to violate the single subject rule is unconstitutional.
[2] A defendant may raise a single subject rule challenge to a statute for the first time on appeal, even if not raised in the trial court.
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“Based on our decision in State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1999), in which we held chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, to be unconstitutional as violative of the single subject rule, we approve the decision below and remand this cause for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on January 14, 1996”
States the Court's holding that the violent career criminal statute was unconstitutional and requires resentencing under prior law
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShawn Seay was sentenced as a violent career criminal under chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida. Seay committed the underlying offense on January 14, 1996…
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 Seay v. State, 728 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), in which the Second District Court of Appeal relied on its prior decision in Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), to reverse Shawn Seay’s violent career criminal sentence.1 The Seay court’s decision expressly and directly conflicts with the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Higgs v. State, 695 So. 2d 872, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Based on our decision in State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999), in which we held chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, to be unconstitutional as violative of the single subject rule, we approve the decision below and remand this cause for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on January 14, 1996, which is when Seay committed the underlying offense in this case.2 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.
. Although the record in this case does not conclusively show that the trial court sentenced Seay as a violent career criminal, the Second District Court of Appeal and the parties here uncontestedly assert that the trial court in fact did so. Accordingly, for purposes of review, we assume that Seay was sentenced as a violent career criminal.
. We note that Seay 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 Seay 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, 759 So. 2d 620, 623, 624 n.4 (Fla.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
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- 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)
- Seay v. State, 728 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)