CHRISTOPHER PHILLIPS, 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 corrective statutes reenacting the challenged provisions could be applied retroactively without violating constitutional principles.
[1] A law enacted in violation of the single subject rule is unconstitutional.
[2] Legislative reenactment of provisions from an unconstitutional law, with retroactive application, may cure the constitutional defect.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted and sentenced with a mandatory minimum term under a statute later found to violate the single subject rule. The Legislature re…
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 (Fla. Const. Art. Iii, § 6) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Phillips appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
Phillips was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, and, as part of his sentence, the court imposed the three-year minimum mandatory term required by section 893.135(l)(b)l.a., Florida Statutes (1999). Phillips argues that because Chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, which amended section 893.135(l)(b)l.a. to add the minimum mandatory term, was enacted in violation of the single subject rule, the court should not have imposed the three-year minimum mandatory term.1 He further claims that a later effort by the Legislature to correct the problem did not cure the constitutional defect.
In Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), the court held that chapter 99-188 violated the single subject rule. In response to Taylor, the Legislature enacted Chapters 02-208, 02-209, 02-210, 01-211, and 02-212, Laws of Florida, which reenacted the provisions of Chapter 99-188. The 2002 chapter laws provide that the corrective statutes were to be applied retroactively, to the extent permitted by the federal and state constitutions.
In Hersey v. State, 831 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), citing Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977), we held that the 2002 chapter laws could be applied retroactively without violating constitutional principles. See also Nieves v. State, 833 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). However, in Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), the Second District Court held that retroactive application of chapter 02-212 would violate the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions.
Based on Hersey, we affirm the order denying Phillips’s motion, but we certify conflict with Green.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur. . Article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution provides, in part, that "[e]veiy law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith....”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1977)
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Hersey v. State, 831 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Eliezer Stern v. State, 833 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Nieves v. State, 833 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)