CARLOS D. GARCIA, 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 Garcia's sentence and remanded for resentencing under pre-amendment sentencing guidelines after determining chapter 95-184 violated the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution.
A defendant may raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-184 for the first time on appeal, and because the statute violates article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution, the sentence must be vacated and resentencing ordered under the prior sentencing guidelines.
[1] A defendant may raise a single subject rule challenge to a sentencing statute for the first time on appeal when the statute violates the Florida Constitution's single sub…
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 intelligenceGarcia was sentenced under chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, which amended the sentencing guidelines. The Fifth District Court of Appeal had affirmed h…
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.
We have for review Garcia v. State, 728 So. 2d 1220 (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 Garcia 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, 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). 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 the district court’s affirmance of Garcia’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines in effect before the relevant amendments made in chapter 95-184 became effective.1
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., dissents.
. Garcia 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)…the challenge to the constitutionality of chapter 95-184 may be properly addressed for the first time on appeal despite the absence of a contemporaneous objection in the trial court. See Heggs, 759 So. 2d at 623, 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…
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)
- Garcia v. State, 728 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)