CLIFFORD FRANK BRYAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Defendant's appeal of denial of postconviction relief is affirmed because he was not adversely affected by the amendments to Florida's habitual violent offender statute in chapter 95-182.
A defendant is not entitled to postconviction relief under the window period for unconstitutional amendments to the HVO statute when the defendant was not adversely affected by those amendments.
[1] A defendant sentenced as a habitual violent offender is not entitled to postconviction relief based on amendments to the HVO statute unless the defendant was adversely af…
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 intelligenceClifford Frank Bryan entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to eight years as a habitual violent offender. He sought resentencing based on alleged un…
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 Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Clifford Frank Bryan appeals an order denying postconviction relief. We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Bryan entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to a term of eight years as a habitual violent offender (“HVO”). He contends that his crime falls within the window period for the unconstitutionality of chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida. See State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1999). He requested resentencing. The trial court denied relief and defendant has appealed.
The defendant is not entitled to relief because the defendant was not adversely affected by the amendments to the HVO statute contained in chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida. Insofar as pertinent here, chapter 95-182 amended the HVO statute to add a new qualifying offense of aggravated stalking. See 750 So. 2d at 647. The State has supplemented the record with defendant’s scoresheet, and it does not reveal, nor does defendant allege, that he has a prior conviction for aggravated stalking and that such conviction was used to qualify him as an HVO. Since defendant was not adversely affected by the amendments contained in chapter 95-182, he was not entitled to postconviction relief. See 750 So. 2d at 649; Gulley v. State, 758 So. 2d 635 (Fla.2000); Melgares v. State, 762 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999)
- German Melgares v. State, 762 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Tarvan Gulley v. State, 758 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2000)