FRANK H. MILLS, 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.
Frank Mills appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging his habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) designation based on the Second District's prior holding that the statutory provision was unconstitutional under the single subject rule. The court reversed and remanded, agreeing that the HVFO designations must be stricken from Mills' sentences.
Mills' HVFO designations and minimum mandatory terms must be stricken from his sentences. The trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to correct illegal sentence, and the case must be remanded for the court to determine if Mills qualifies as an HVFO under the valid 1998 version of section 775.084.
[1] A statute violating the single subject rule is unconstitutional.
[2] Retroactive reenactment of provisions found in an unconstitutional statute is invalid.
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“Mills qualified as an HVFO under the amendments to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), in chapter 99-188, but Mills did not qualify as an HVFO under the valid version of section 775.084 in effect at the time of the offenses.”
Establishes the factual basis for finding the sentence illegal—Mills was sentenced under an unconstitutional statute under which he would not have qualified.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMills was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender under amendments found in chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida. The Second District had previousl…
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender (Hvfo) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*47] DAVIS, Judge.
Frank H. Mills appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Mills alleged that his habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) sentences are illegal based on this court’s opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002), which held chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, unconstitutional in violation of the single subject rule. The legislature attempted to cure the constitutional violation by retroactively reenacting the provisions found in chapter 99-188. However, this court held the retroactive reenactment to be invalid in Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
In its response, the State concedes that Mills qualified as an HVFO under the amendments to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), in chapter 99-188, but Mills did not qualify as an HVFO under the valid version of section 775.084 in effect at the time of the offenses. Compare ch. 99-188, § 3, at 1043, Laws of Fla., toith § 775.084(l)(b)(2)b, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1998). Although the State disagrees with the holdings in Taylor and Green, the State concedes that Taylor and Green require that the HVFO designations be stricken from Mills’ sentences. We agree that this is the proper remedy. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order of denial and remand for correction of Mills’ sentences. On remand, if Mills does not qualify as an HVFO under the 1998 version of section 775.084, the trial court shall strike the HVFO designations and minimum mandatory terms from Mills’ sentences.
We certify conflict with State v. Franklin, 836 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA), review granted, No. SC03-413, 854 So. 2d 659 (Fla.2003), which held that chapter 99-188 does not violate the single subject rule. As we did in Green, we certify conflict with Carlson v. State, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D2162 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct.4, 2002); Lecorn v. State, 832 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); and Jones v. State, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D2377 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov.1, 2002), and we note possible conflict with Nieves v. State, 833 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Green v. State, 832 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Gende v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 836 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Lecorn v. State, 832 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Green v. State, 832 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th 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)