KEITH SCHUMAKER, 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.
Defendant's conviction for sexual battery was affirmed because he lacked standing to challenge the 1995 sentencing guidelines on single-subject grounds, as the constitutional defect was cured by reenactment before his crimes occurred.
A defendant lacks standing to challenge sentencing guidelines on single-subject grounds when the crimes occurred after the constitutional defect was cured by reenactment.
[1] A defendant lacks standing to challenge sentencing guidelines on constitutional grounds when the alleged constitutional defect was cured by reenactment before the defenda…
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 intelligenceDefendant was convicted of sexual battery with force or injury for crimes occurring on May 13 or 14, 1997. He appealed his conviction and sentence, ra…
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 Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for sexual battery with force or injury, an offense which occurred on May 13 or 14, 1997. He raises five issues, four of which we affirm without comment. In his fifth issue, he contends the trial court erred by sentencing him under the 1995 sentencing guidelines because chapter 95-184 violated the single-subject rule. While we recognize that the Florida Supreme Court has held chapter 95-184 to be unconstitutional because it violates the single-subject rule, see Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), we hold that the Defendant lacks standing to raise a constitutional challenge to chapter 95-184 because the crimes for which he was convicted occurred after October 1, 1996, when the constitutional defect was cured by the reenactment of the sentencing guidelines via chapter 96-388, see Bortel v. State, 743 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction and sentence on all grounds. Because the Second District has determined that the window period to challenge chapter 95-184 on single-subject grounds closes on May 24, 1997, see Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263, 264 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), we certify conflict with the Second District on the issue of the applicable window period.
AFFIRMED.
WARNER, C.J., GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schumaker v. State, 773 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Schumaker v. State, 758 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), wherein the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), on the issue of standing to challenge chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, as violative of the single subject rul…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Bortel v. State, 743 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)