BRYAN J. GLOVER, 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 held that the defendant's motion was facially insufficient because it failed to allege the date of the offense, which is necessary to determine if the offense occurred within the 'Taylor window' for resentencing.
[1] A statute violating the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution is unconstitutional.
[2] Reenactment of sentencing provisions previously invalidated for violating the single subject rule cannot be applied retroactively if such application would violate the Ex…
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 intelligenceBryan J. Glover challenged a mandatory minimum sentence imposed for drug trafficking, arguing it was based on an unconstitutional law. The trial court…
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 Florida Constitution cases and more on FLexlaw
[*259] WHATLEY, Judge.
Bryan J. Glover challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Because Glover failed to present a facially sufficient claim, we affirm the trial court’s order. In his motion, Glover alleged that the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for trafficking in methylene-dioxymethamphetamine was illegally imposed. Glover based his claim on our opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002).
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 that “[a]s 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.
If Glover’s offense occurred within the Taylor window, he is entitled to be resen-tenced under the valid law in effect at the time of the offense. See Green, 839 So. 2d 748. However, Glover failed to present a facially sufficient claim for relief under rule 3.800(a) since he failed to affirmatively allege that he committed the offense on a date within the Taylor window. See Sims v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, we affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to any right Glover might have to file a facially sufficient claim. See id.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kaymore v. State, 846 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ufficient because he has failed to allege the date of his offenses or how he was affected by the amendments to the violent career criminal statute contained in chapter 99-188. See Pruitte v. State, 845 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Glover v. State, 845 So. 2d 258(Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to any right Kay-more may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion raising these claims. Affirmed. DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Orosco v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Edrick Lee Hines v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)