JAMIE GOMEZ MANCHA, 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.
Sentences imposed under an unconstitutional amendment to section 775.084 are subject to reversal. A defendant has standing to challenge such sentences if the offense occurred within a specific timeframe.
[1] A single subject rule challenge to a statute may be properly addressed for the first time on appeal.
[2] A defendant has standing to seek reversal of sentences imposed under an unconstitutional statute if the subject offenses occurred within the period specified by controlli…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJamie Mancha was sentenced as a violent career criminal. The Florida Supreme Court later ruled the statute used for sentencing unconstitutional. Both …
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 Violent Career Criminal Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
The appellant, Jamie Mancha, challenges his violent career criminal sentences, alleging that the State failed to present sufficient evidence establishing that he qualifies as a violent career criminal, as defined in section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1995). After the Florida Supreme Court announced in State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1999), that sentencing pursuant to section 775.084, as amended by chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, is unconstitutional, both parties submitted supplemental briefs addressing whether Mancha’s sentences should be reversed on this basis.
Initially, we hold that the single subject rule challenge may be properly addressed in this case for the first time on appeal. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620, 624 (Fla.2000); Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667, 669 n. 4 (Fla.2000).1 Turning to the constitutional challenge, we hold that Mancha has standing to seek reversal of his sentences on this basis because the subject offenses occurred on October 31, 1996. See Salters, 758 So. 2d at 671 (holding any defendant sentenced pursuant to 775.084, as amended by chapter 95-182, for an offense occurring between October 1, 1995, and May 24, 1997, has standing to assert the single subject rule challenge). Based on this determination, we do not address Mancha’s argument that the State failed to prove that he qualifies as a violent career criminal.
Accordingly, we reverse Mancha’s sentences and remand to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on October 31,1996.
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur. . In the future, those defendants who have available the procedural mechanism of the recently amended rule 3.800(b), see Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(c) and 3.800 and Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.010(h), 9.140, and 9.600, 761 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1999), must first raise the single subject rule challenge in the trial court. See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 94 (Fla.2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Capre v. State, 773 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…1 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1999). Under Maddox, sentencing errors occurring after the effective date of amended rule 3.800(b), even fundamental ones, are barred if not raised at trial or in post-trial proceedings pursuant to rule 3.800. See Mancha v. State, 768 So. 2d 1178 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED. THOMPSON, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. . See, e.g., Willard v. State, 717 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ("It goes almost without saying that a judge may not…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999)
- Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2000)
- Amendments TO Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Fla. Rules OF App. Procedure 9.020(h), 791 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2001)