BRUCE LINDSEY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of motion to correct illegal sentence, holding that a prison releasee reoffender sentence was legal because the defendant failed to allege he was affected by the unconstitutional amendments to chapter 99-188 and could have been sentenced under the valid pre-amendment statute.
A prison releasee reoffender sentence is not illegal merely because chapter 99-188 was unconstitutional, where the defendant does not allege he was affected by the amendments and could have been sentenced under the valid pre-amendment statute.
[1] A prison releasee reoffender sentence imposed under a statute that was validly enacted prior to an unconstitutional amendment is not illegal where the defendant fails to…
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 intelligenceBruce Lindsey was sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender and filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure…
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
DAVIS, Judge.
Bruce Lindsey 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). Lindsey argues that his sentence as a prison releasee reoffender is 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 since it was enacted in violation of the single subject rule. The effective date of the Prison Releasee Reoffender 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 reoffender 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. Since Lindsey has not alleged that he was affected by the amendments to the Act 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
Cited By
-
Powell v. State, 841 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…sentence or while on escape status. See Ch. 99-188, § 2, at 1041, Laws of Fla. Since Powell has not alleged that he was affected by the amendments to the prison releasee reoffender statute, this claim is facially insufficient. See Lindsey v. State, 839 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); McCarthy v. State, 835 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cubby v. State, 835 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm as to this issue. Powell also claims that his sentence violates double jeopardy because the enhance…
-
Diaz v. State, 846 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…retroactive application would violate the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Florida Constitution, Diaz’s claim would still lack merit because he was not adversely affected by the amendments made by Chapter 99-188. See Lindsey v. State, 839 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Under the 1998 version of section 893.135, Diaz’s mandatory minimum sentence would have been the same. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. AFFIRMED. SHARP, W. and PALMER, JJ., concur.…
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)