RICHARD W. MCCARTHY, 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 denial of McCarthy's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that because he failed to allege he was affected by the unconstitutional amendments to the prison releasee reoffender statute, the validly enacted prior version of the statute controlled his sentencing.
A defendant challenging a prison releasee reoffender sentence must allege that he was affected by the unconstitutional amendments to the statute and could not have been sentenced under the prior valid version.
[1] A defendant challenging a prison releasee reoffender sentence based on unconstitutional statutory amendments must allege that he was affected by those amendments and coul…
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 intelligenceRichard W. McCarthy was sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender and challenged the sentence as illegal based on Taylor v. State, which held that cha…
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 Facially Insufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Richard W. McCarthy challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
McCarthy argues that his sentences as a prison releasee reoffender are illegal based on Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed by 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002).
Taylor held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, was unconstitutional because it was enacted in violation of the single subject rule. The effective date of the Prison Releasee Reof-fender Punishment Act1 is May 30, 1997. Jefferson v. State, 777 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Chapter 99-188 broadened the definition of a prison releasee reoffen- der to include a defendant who commits a listed offense while serving a prison sentence or is on escape status. See ch. 99-188, § 2, at 1041, Laws of Fla. Because McCarthy has not alleged that he was affected by the amendments to the prison releasee reoffender statute and that he could not have been sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender pursuant to the statute in existence prior to the passage of chapter 99-188, his claim is facially insufficient. See Bush v. State, 823 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that the validly enacted statutes in effect prior to the enactment of chapter 99-188 control sentencing).
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.
ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur. . Ch. 97-239, Laws of Fla.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Bush v. State, 823 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Jefferson v. State, 777 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)