OSVALDO VALDES, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 2000-05-25
No. SC95427
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur., WELLS, J., dissents.
759 So. 2d 684 Florida Supreme Court (2000) Negative Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, is unconstitutional, quashing the decision below.


Facts & Procedural History

The Third District Court of Appeal held chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, to be constitutional. The defendant committed offenses on July 21, 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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Valdes v. State, 728 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in which the Third District Court of Appeal held chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, to be constitutional. We recently reached a contrary result in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla Const. Based on our decision in Heggs, we quash the decision below and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on July 21, 1996, the date on which Osvaldo Valdes committed the underlying offenses in this case.1

It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., dissents.

. We note that Valdes has standing to raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-184, 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 Bortel v. State, 743 So. 2d 595, 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Further, even though Valdes 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. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620-623, 624 n. 4 (Fla.2000); cf. 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

Cited By

  • Benton v. State, 765 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
    …delines were unconstitutional. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). The trial court denied the motion relying on Valdes v. State, 728 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), which has since been quashed by the supreme court. See Valdes v. State, 759 So. 2d 684 (Fla.2000). We therefore reverse and remand for further consideration of his motion. See Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). On remand, the trial court shall determine whether Benton in fact committed his offense within the Heggs wi…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw