MICKEY A. PALMIERI, 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.
This case concerns whether a defendant could challenge his sentence under a prior ruling that found a sentencing act unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the challenge, finding the defendant's sentence was not subject to the prior ruling.
No, Mickey Palmieri is not entitled to relief. The court held that the Taylor v. State ruling, which found the original act unconstitutional, is inapplicable to sentences imposed for offenses committed in 1998, as the act was in effect at that time. Subsequent legislative action cured the single subject rule violation.
[1] A statute found unconstitutional for violating the single subject rule may be cured by subsequent legislative reenactment.
[2] The reenactment of sentencing provisions previously found unconstitutional cannot be applied retroactively if such application would violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of…
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“Taylor held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution.”
This quote establishes the legal basis for the appellant's challenge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMickey Palmieri sought to invalidate his mandatory prison sentences for burglaries committed in 1998. He argued the sentences were illegal because the…
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
WALLACE, Judge.
Mickey A. Palmieri appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Proce dure 3.800(a).
In his motion, Palmieri alleged that his five concurrent fifteen-year mandatory terms of imprisonment for five burglaries committed during 1998 imposed pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act were illegal under Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002).
Taylor held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution. Id. at 550.
In denying Palmieri’s motion, the trial court found that “[a]s of April 29, 2002, the Florida Legislature cured the single subject rule violation by reenacting the provisions originally contained in Chapter 99-188. In doing so, 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), review granted, Franklin v. State, 854 So. 2d 659 (Fla.2003), this court 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.
The effective date of the Prison Releas-ee Reoffender Punishment Act, chapter 97-239, Laws of Florida, was May 30, 1997. Jefferson v. State, 111 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Chapter 99-188, containing certain amendments to the Act, did not become effective until July 1, 1999. Therefore, Taylor is inapplicable to the sentences imposed for Palmieri’s offenses that were committed in 1998. Palmieri does not allege that he could not have been sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender pursuant to the statute in effect on the dates of his offenses. Thus Palmieri is not entitled to relief.
We therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying Palmieri’s motion to correct illegal sentence on the basis that Palmieri’s sentence is not subject to challenge under Taylor. Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mack v. State, 252 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)