JAMES JOHNSON, JR., 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.
Johnson's motion to correct sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is reversed and remanded because the trial court applied an incorrect window period for challenging Chapter 95-184 under the single subject provision.
A defendant may challenge a sentence imposed under Chapter 95-184 if the primary offense was committed during the correct window period (October 1, 1995 to May 24, 1997) when the statute was unconstitutional.
[1] The window period for challenging Chapter 95-184 as unconstitutional under the single subject provision extends from October 1, 1995 through May 24, 1997, and offenses co…
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 intelligenceJohnson was sentenced pursuant to amended sentencing guidelines in Chapter 95-184 for a primary offense committed on May 2, 1997. He moved to correct …
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 Constitutional Challenge To Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Johnson appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Johnson asserts that the primary criminal offense on his guideline scoresheet was committed on May 2, 1997, within the window period when Chapter 96-184, Laws of Florida, was unconstitutional for violating the single subject provision of the state constitution. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Johnson further asserts that he was sentenced pursuant to the amended sentencing guidelines contained in Chapter 95-184, and the sentence that he received would have constituted a departure under the previous version of the guidelines.
The window period for challenges to Chapter 95-184 opened on October 1, 1995 and closed on May 24, 1997. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000). The trial court, in denying relief, relied on a case which recognized a shorter window period, see Bortel v. State, 743 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The trial court did not have the benefit of Trapp. We therefore reverse the order denying relief, and remand the case for the trial court to reconsider the 3.800(a) motion in light of Trapp. See Perez v. State, 762 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHARP, W., and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Bortel v. State, 743 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Perez v. State, 762 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Bledsoe v. State, 762 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)