JEANNE BARBER, 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.
Jeanne Barber challenged a mandatory minimum sentence for drug trafficking imposed under a statute declared unconstitutional in Taylor v. State. The court reversed the trial court's denial of her rule 3.800(a) motion, holding that because her offense occurred during the 'Taylor window' when the statute was unconstitutional, she must be resentenced under the prior 1997 version of the statute.
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. Because Barber's offense occurred within the Taylor window when the statute was unconstitutional, and the reenacted statute cannot be applied retroactively, she is entitled to resentencing under the 1997 version of the statute.
[1] A statute providing for minimum mandatory sentences for drug trafficking offenses may be unconstitutional.
[2] Reenactment of minimum mandatory sentencing terms by the legislature, even with retroactive application, does not cure a prior unconstitutional statute.
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 standard for challenging mandatory minimum sentences through rule 3.800(a) motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarber pleaded guilty to trafficking in hydromophone (more than four but less than fourteen grams). The trial court imposed a three-year mandatory min…
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
COVINGTON, Judge.
Jeanne Barber challenges the order of the trial court denying her 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 her motion, Barber alleged that she pleaded to trafficking in more than four but less than fourteen grams of hy-dromorphone. She further alleged that the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court pursuant to section 893.135(l)(c)(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 the 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 reenactment was retroactive to July 1, 1999.” However, this court in Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), 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.
Barber alleged that she committed the offense of trafficking in hydromor-phone in April 2001, which is within the Taylor window. See Green, 839 So. 2d at 750 n. 1. Therefore, she has 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 Barber’s claim. If Barber is correct that the trial court imposed a mandatory minimum pursuant to section 893.135(l)(c)(l)(a) where the offense was committed within the Taylor window, the trial court shall resentence her 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.
SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fillyaw v. State, 853 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…der the reenacted statute in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clauses of both the Florida and federal constitutions. Therefore, I believe that Fillyaw is entitled to the relief he requested in his motion for postconviction relief. See Barber v. State, 849 So. 2d 361, 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“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.”); McCabe v. State, 844 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Sims v. S…
-
Pena v. State, 853 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…Hence, Pena received a more severe punishment under the reenacted statute in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clauses of both the Florida and federal constitutions. Therefore, I believe that Pena’s motion should have been granted. See Barber v. State, 849 So. 2d 361, 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“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.”); McCabe v. State, 844 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Sims v. S…
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)