HAROLD WILLIAMS, 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 because the statute authorizing it violated the single subject rule, and remanded for resentencing under the valid law in effect when the offense was committed.
Chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, is unconstitutional under the single subject rule, and a defendant sentenced under it 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 a statute under which he was sentenced, even if the challenge was not previously raised.
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 intelligenceHarold Williams was sentenced as a violent career criminal under chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed his sent…
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 Williams v. State, 731 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in which the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Harold Williams’ violent career criminal sentence and 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), 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 January 20, 1997, the date on which Williams 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.
. Based on our decision in Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667 (Fla.2000), we determine that Williams has standing to raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida. Moreover, we decline to address Williams' claim challenging the Third District’s interpretation of section 775.084(l)(c)l., Florida Statutes (1997), which is clearly outside the scope of the certified conflict issue.
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)
- Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2000)
- Scruggs v. State, 731 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)