EDWARD TIGER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Article Iii, Section 6 Of The Florida Constitution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion claiming that his habitual offender sentence is illegal under State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1999). Thompson held that chapter 95-182, the law under which appellant was sentenced, violated the single subject rule of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. See id. at 649. That chapter not only created the violent career criminal category of enhanced sentences, but it also amended the habitual violent offender sentencing provisions of section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1995). Appellant was sentenced as a habitual violent offender for his crimes. However, because chapter 95-182 did not change section 775.084 as it pertained to the sentencing of appellant, and appellant would have qualified for habitual offender sentencing under the 1994 version of the statute, the motion shows on its face that the 1995 amendment declared unconstitutional in Thompson did not affect appellant’s sentence.
Affirmed.
WARNER, C.J., GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
James v. State, 775 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…, 594 So. 2d at 271. Since Mr. James could have been sentenced as a habitual felony offender for the offense of armed burglary prior to the amendment, he is not entitled to resentencing for this offense. See Dixon, 763 So. 2d at 314; Tiger v. State, 764 So. 2d 824, 824-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s order as it pertains to Mr. James’ convictions and his sentence for armed burglary. However, we reverse the order as it pertains to his sentence for attempted first-degree murde…
-
Cookshot v. State, 846 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…eclared only those portions of section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1995), enacted in [*605] chapter 95-182, as being unconstitutional, not the previously enacted portions. Therefore, Thompson had no effect on appellant’s sentence. See Tiger v. State, 764 So. 2d 824, 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Affirmed. GUNTHER, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Benedetto v. State, 957 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…s offense within the window period established by Thompson, the trial court could have imposed the HVFO sentence in this case under the prior version of the statute without the amendments. Johnson v. State, 763 So. 2d 283 (Fla.2000); Tiger v. State, 764 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). POLEN, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999)