JAMES TARPLEY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court quashed a conviction under chapter 95-182 because the statute violated the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution, and remanded for resentencing under valid laws in effect at the time of the offense.
Chapter 95-182 violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution, and a defendant whose offense occurred between October 1, 1995, and May 24, 1997, has standing to challenge the statute and must be resentenced under valid laws in effect at the time of the offense.
[1] A defendant has standing to challenge a statute on single subject rule grounds if the criminal offense occurred on or after October 1, 1995, and before May 24, 1997.
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 intelligenceTarpley was convicted under chapter 95-182 for offenses committed on September 25, 1996. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, b…
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
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Tarpley v. State, 742 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), which is in express and direct conflict with the Second District’s decision in Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), on the issue of whether chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, violates the single subject rule contained in article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Since the issuance of the decision below, this Court has resolved the inter-district conflict. Specifically, in State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643, 648 (Fla.1999), we held that chapter 95-182 violated the single subject rule. Moreover, because the offenses for which Tarpley was convicted occurred on September 25, 1996, he has standing to challenge chapter 95-182 on single subject rule grounds. See Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667 (Fla.2000) (holding that those who seek to challenge the violent career criminal sentencing provision enacted by chapter 95-182 have standing to do so if the relevant criminal offense or offenses occurred on or after October 1, 1995, and before May 24, 1997). Thus, consistent with our decisions in Thompson and Salters, we quash the decision below and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on the date of the offenses. See Thompson, 750 So. 2d at 649 (remanding for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time the defendant committed her offense).
It is so ordered.
SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ„ concur. WELLS, C.J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. State, 775 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. Appellant’s sentence is vacated, and the cause is remanded for resentencing. State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1999), and Tarpley v. State, 772 So. 2d 1219 (Fla.2000). KAHN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
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, 758 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2000)
- Tarpley v. State, 742 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Dedrick Render v. State, 742 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)