STEPHEN MURPHY, 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.
Stephen Murphy challenged a mandatory minimum sentence for cocaine trafficking imposed under a statute that was unconstitutionally enacted under the single-subject rule and then retroactively reenacted. The court reversed the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion and remanded for resentencing under the pre-reenactment statute.
The court held that Murphy presented a facially sufficient claim because his offense was committed within the Taylor window (before the constitutional violation was cured), and mandatory minimum sentences illegally imposed can be challenged through Rule 3.800(a) motions. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing under the 1997 version of the statute.
[1] A law enacted in violation of the single subject rule is void ab initio and cannot be applied retroactively.
[2] Retroactive application of a criminal statute that disadvantages the offender violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 standard for bringing Rule 3.800(a) challenges to mandatory minimum sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurphy pleaded guilty to trafficking in more than 28 but less than 200 grams of cocaine and was sentenced to a three-year mandatory minimum term of im…
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 Sufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Stephen Murphy 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, Murphy alleged that he pleaded to trafficking in more than 28 but less than 200 grams of cocaine. He further alleged that the three-year manda tory minimum term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court pursuant to section 893.135(1)(b)(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), 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 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.... 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.
Murphy alleged that he committed the offense of trafficking in cocaine on July 17, 1999, which is within the Taylor window. See Green, 839 So. 2d at 750 n. 1. Murphy has therefore presented a facially sufficient claim. See Sims, 838 So. 2d 658. We reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further consideration of Murphy’s claim. If Murphy is correct that the trial court imposed a mandatory minimum pursuant to section 893.135(l)(b)(l)(a) where the offense was committed within the Taylor window, the trial court shall resentence him under the 1997 version of that statute. 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
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)