ERNEST LEE HARDY, 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.
Ernest Lee Hardy challenged a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for cocaine trafficking as illegal under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), arguing the statute imposing it violated the single subject rule. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that subsequent re-enactment of the unconstitutional statute could not be applied retroactively without violating ex post facto protections.
The court held that Hardy's mandatory minimum sentence must be vacated and he must be resentenced under the 1997 version of the statute because the re-enactment of the sentencing provisions cannot be applied retroactively without violating the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions.
[1] A claim that a mandatory minimum sentence was illegally imposed is cognizable in a motion for postconviction relief where the error is apparent on the face of the record.
[2] A statute that violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution is unconstitutional.
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 that sentencing challenges based on illegal mandatory minimums are properly brought under rule 3.800(a)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHardy pleaded guilty to trafficking in more than 28 but less than 200 grams of cocaine in November 2000. The trial court imposed a three-year mandator…
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 Motion Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.800(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Ernest Lee Hardy 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 resentencing.
In his motion, Hardy alleged that he pleaded to trafficking in more than 28 but less than 200 grams of cocaine. He further alleged that the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court pursuant to section 893.135(l)(b)(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), is illegal based on our opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (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 Hardy’s motion, the trial court found: “As of April 29, 2002, the Florida Legislature has cured the single subject rule violation by re-enacting the provisions originally contained in Chapter 99-188. The re-enactment was retroactive 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.
Hardy committed the offense of trafficking in cocaine in November 2000, which is within the Taylor window. See Green, 839 So. 2d at 750 n. 1. Therefore, Hardy has presented a facially sufficient claim. See Green, 839 So. 2d 748. We reverse the order of the trial court and remand with instructions to the trial court to resentence Hardy under the 1997 version of section 893.135(l)(b)(l)(a). See id. 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
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)