SCOTT WALDEMAR KARO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2003-05-02
No. 2D02-3324
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
849 So. 2d 351 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2003) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Scott Karo appealed the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging mandatory minimum sentences for two cocaine trafficking convictions. The court partially reversed, finding that one mandatory minimum sentence was illegally imposed under the unconstitutional chapter 99-188, while affirming the denial regarding the other sentence.


Holding

The court reversed the denial of Karo's challenge to the seven-year mandatory minimum for the 200-400 gram trafficking offense because it was imposed under the unconstitutional chapter 99-188 and the offense fell within the Taylor window, requiring resentencing under the 1997 statute. The court affirmed the denial regarding the fifteen-year mandatory minimum because section 893.135(l)(b)(1)(c) was not affected by the unconstitutional amendments in chapter 99-188.


Headnotes

[1] A claim that a mandatory minimum sentence was illegally imposed is cognizable in a motion for postconviction relief if 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

Key Quotes

“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 challenging mandatory minimum sentences 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 intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Karo pleaded guilty to trafficking in more than 200 but less than 400 grams of cocaine and received a seven-year mandatory minimum sentence. He also p…

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.


Opinion of the Court
WHATLEY, Judge.

WHATLEY, Judge.

Scott Waldemar Karo challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s order in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

In his motion, Karo alleged that he entered a plea to trafficking in more than 200 grams but less than 400 grams of cocaine. He further alleged that the seven-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court pursuant to section 893.135(l)(b)(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1999-2000), 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). Karo also alleged that he pleaded guilty in another trial court case to trafficking in more than 400 grams but less than 150 kilograms of cocaine. He alleged that the fifteen-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to section 893.135(l)(b)(l)(c) is illegal pursuant to Taylor. 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 that the legislature cured the single subject rule violation by reenacting the provisions originally contained in chapter 99-188 and that the reenactment 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.

Karo alleged that the dates of the commission of the offenses in question fall within the Taylor window. See Green, 839 So. 2d at 750 n. 1. Therefore, Karo has presented a facially sufficient claim in regard to the offense of trafficking in cocaine in an amount of more than 200 but less than 400 grams of cocaine. See Sims, 838 So. 2d 658.

We reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further consideration of this particular claim. If Karo is correct that the trial court imposed a mandatory minimum pursuant to section 893.135(l)(b)(l)(b) 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.

Karo is not entitled to relief on his claim that the fifteen-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to section 893.135(l)(b)(l)(c) is an illegal sentence since that section was not affected by the amendments to section 893.135 contained in chapter 99-188. See Rowe v. State, 839 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Therefore, we affirm the denial of this claim.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Langley v. State, 848 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
    …imposed but without prejudice to Mr. Langley’s right to file a facially sufficient motion for postcon- [*430] viction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, if he determines that this is in his best interest. See Karo v. State, 849 So. 2d 351, 2003 WL 2003719 (Fla. 2d DCA May 2, 2003) (explaining that facially sufficient claim for relief pursuant to Taylor requires alleging date of offense and that amendments held unconstitutional in Taylor affected statute under which sentence was impos…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw