JAMES OSBORNE, 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 appellant lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the sentencing statute because the offense occurred outside the statutorily defined window period.
Appellant was convicted of burglary and sentenced as a violent career criminal under a statute later found unconstitutional. The challenge is based on…
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 Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, James Osborne, was convicted of burglary of a dwelling. The crime occurred on February 5, 1997. Appellant was sentenced as a violent career criminal pursuant to section 775:084(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1995). That portion of the sentencing statute was created by Chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida.
The supreme court has recently held that Chapter 95-182 was “unconstitutional as violative of the single subject rule contained in article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution.” State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1999).
This court has held that only those persons who committed their criminal offenses on or after October 1, 1995, and before October 1, 1996, had standing to challenge Chapter 95-182 on single subject grounds. See Salters v. State, 731 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. granted, 749 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1999). According to the second district, the window period for the bringing of a single subject rule challenge closed on May 24, 1997, and not on October 1, 1996. The supreme court declined to rule of the standing issue in Thompson.
Since appellant committed the burglary on February 5, 1997, he does not have standing to challenge Chapter 95-182 on single subject rule grounds. On the standing issue, we certify conflict with Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
On the remaining issue, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal.
AFFIRMED.
DELL, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osborne v. State, 768 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Osborne v. State, 766 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the Second District’s decision in Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), approved, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1999), on the issue of standing to challe…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999)
- Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Salters v. State, 731 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Vining v. Segal, 731 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)