CARL CYRUS, 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 the Third District's affirmance of a violent career criminal sentence imposed under chapter 95-182, holding the statute unconstitutional under the single subject rule and remanding for resentencing under the valid laws in effect when the offense was committed.
A statute violating the single subject rule is unconstitutional and cannot support a violent career criminal sentence, requiring resentencing under the valid laws in effect at the time of the offense.
[1] A defendant may challenge a statute on single subject rule grounds for the first time on appeal when the statute violates the Florida Constitution's single subject requir…
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 intelligenceCyrus was sentenced as a violent career criminal under chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, on December 9, 1996. The Third District Court of Appeal upheld…
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 Cyrus v. State, 717 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), in which the Third District Court of Appeal held chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, to be constitutional. In so holding, the Cyrus 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 December 9, 1996, the date, on which Cyrus committed the underlying offense for which he was sentenced as a violent career criminal.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.
. Based on our decision in Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667 (Fla.2000), we determine that Cyrus has standing to challenge chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, on single subject rule grounds. Further, even though Cyrus 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, 241-42 (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)
- Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2000)
- Nelson v. State, 748 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1999)
- Pledge Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)