JAMES RICH, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions but reversed his violent career criminal sentence because the law creating it violated the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution.
The defendant was convicted of battery and robbery. He received a violent career criminal sentence. The defendant challenged the constitutionality of …
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 Standing To Challenge Constitutionality cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, J.
Rich appeals his convictions for the crimes of battery upon a person 65 years of age or older, and robbery. In addition, Rich challenges his violent career criminal sentence imposed pursuant to section 775.084(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1997).
We affirm Rich’s convictions. We hold, however, that Rich has standing to challenge the constitutionality of his violent career criminal sentence on the grounds that chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, the law giving rise to career criminal sentencing, was adopted in violation of the single subject requirement of the Florida Constitution. See Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667 (Fla.2000)(holding that individuals challenging violent career criminal sentencing provisions enacted by chapter 95-182 have standing to do so if relevant criminal offenses occurred on or after October 1, 1995, and before May 24, 1997).
We, therefore, reverse Rich’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on November 14th 1996, the date on which Rich committed the underlying offenses. See State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1999)(hold-ing that chapter 95-182 violates the Florida Constitution’s single subject requirement); Salters, 758 So. 2d at 667 (reversing violent career criminal sentence and remanding for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time the defendant committed his offenses).
AFFIRM CONVICTIONS; REMAND FOR RESENTENCING.
DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rich v. State, 814 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ealed his sentence, arguing that the violent career criminal sentencing scheme was enacted in violation of the single subject rule. This court agreed, reversed his sentence, and remanded the case so that Rich could be resentenced. See Rich v. State, 765 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). On remand, the trial court vacated Rich’s violent career criminal sentence and a new sentencing hearing was held, resulting in his current habitual violent felony offender sentence. In imposing the new sentence, however, over d…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999)
- Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2000)