WILLIAM F. GILBERT, 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.
William Gilbert appealed the denial of his motion challenging mandatory minimum sentences imposed for drug trafficking convictions. The court reversed, holding that because Gilbert's offenses occurred within the "Taylor window" (after an unconstitutional statute was enacted but before it was cured), the mandatory minimums cannot be applied retroactively under ex post facto principles.
The mandatory minimum sentences cannot be applied retroactively because doing so would violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of both the United States and Florida Constitutions. Gilbert's conviction for offenses committed in November 2000 falls within the Taylor window, making his claim facially sufficient for relief.
[1] A claim that a mandatory minimum sentence was illegally imposed is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion if the error is apparent on the face of the record.
[2] Chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, which provided for mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses, was held unconstitutional for violating the single subje…
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 intelligence“A claim that a mandatory minimum sentence was illegally imposed is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion where the error is apparent on the face of the record.”
Establishes the legal basis for reviewing mandatory minimum sentencing challenges as apparent errors on the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGilbert was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and trafficking in methylenedioxy-methamphetamine. He was sentenced to three-year mandatory minimum te…
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 Single Subject Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
William F. Gilbert challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
In his motion, Gilbert alleged that he was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and trafficking in methylenedioxy-methamphetamine. He further alleged that the three-year mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment imposed by the trial court pursuant to sections' 893.136(1)(b)(1)(a) and 893.135(1)(j)(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), are illegal based on our opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 802 (Fla.2002). A claim that a mandatory minimum sentence was illegally imposed is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion where the error is apparent on the face of the record. See Sims v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Leath v. State, 805 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Taylor held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, which provided for the imposition of mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses, is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution. In denying the motion, the trial court found: “As of April 29, 2002, the Florida Legislature cured the single subject rule violation by reenacting the provisions originally contained in Chapter 99-188. See Chapters 2002-208-2002-212, Laws of Florida. In so doing, the Florida Legislature provided for the retroactive application of each reenactment to July 1, 1999.” However, in Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), this court has since held that the reenactment of the sentencing provisions of chapter 99-188 cannot be applied retroactively because this would violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions.
Gilbert alleged that he committed the offenses of trafficking in cocaine and trafficking in methylenedioxymethamptheta-mine in November 2000, which is within the Taylor window. See Green, 839 So. 2d at 750 n. 1. Therefore, Gilbert has presented a facially sufficient claim. See Sims, 838 So. 2d 658.
We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further consideration of Gilbert’s claim. If Gilbert is correct that the trial court imposed the mandatory minimum terms pursuant to sections 893.135(l)(b)(l)(a) and 893.135(l)(j)(2)(a) where the offenses were committed within the Taylor window, the trial court shall resentence him under the 1997 version of those statutes. See Green, 839 So. 2d 748. We certify conflict with the Fourth and Fifth District cases with which we disagreed in Green.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Strazdins, 890 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…that a mandatory minimum sentence for the offense of trafficking in MDMA during the window period of Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), was unconstitutional. See Staley v. State, 860 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Gilbert v. State, 843 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Thus the trial court lacked the discretion to impose a mandatory minimum sentence on Strazdins. This court receded, however, from Gilbert and Staley in Wright v. State, 869 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (en banc). In the meantime,…
-
Wright v. State, 869 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ffected by any infirmity in chapter 99-188,” by Taylor, “or by enactment of chapter 2002-212, Laws of Florida.” Urruchurtu v. State, 858 So. 2d 387, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Therefore, Wright is not entitled to relief. Wright cites Gilbert v. State, 843 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), in support of his argument. In Gilbert, the defendant filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), challenging, under Taylor, the imposition of three-year mandatory minimum sentences for traffi…
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Leath v. State, 805 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Orosco v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Edrick Lee Hines v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)