RONALD CARSON, 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 Carson's sentences and remanded for resentencing because chapter 95-184 was unconstitutional under the single subject rule, allowing a first-time appellate challenge to the statute.
A defendant may raise a single subject rule challenge to a statute for the first time on appeal, and chapter 95-184 is unconstitutional under article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution.
[1] A defendant may raise a single subject rule challenge to a statute for the first time on appeal when the statute violates article III, section 6 of the Florida Constituti…
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 intelligenceCarson committed offenses on February 10, 1996, and was sentenced under chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida.…
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 Appellate Standing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Carson v. State, 731 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), wherein the Fifth District Court of Appeal cited as controlling authority Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), which was then pending on review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981). Based on our decision in Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000), we determine that Carson may properly raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, for the first time on appeal. See also Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620, 623 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). Further, based on our decision in Heggs in which we held chapter 95-184 to be unconstitutional as violative of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution, we quash that portion of the district court’s decision that affirmed Carson’s sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on February 10, 1996, the date on which Carson 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.
. Carson has standing to challenge chapter 95-184 on single subject rule grounds. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hope v. State, 797 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2001)…, 624 n. 4; see also Garcia v. State, 760 So. 2d 931 (Fla.2000) (“Based on our decision in [Maddox ], we determine that Garcia may properly raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-184 ... for the first time on appeal.”); Carson v. State, 760 So. 2d 930 (Fla.2000) (same). As Hope’s offense was committed on July 24, 1996, Hope has standing to raise a Heggs claim. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924, 928 (Fla.2000) (extending the window period in which defendant could obtain relief for Heggs error fro…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Nelson v. State, 748 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1999)
- Carson v. State, 731 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Bearce v. State, 731 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)