MICHAEL DELPRETE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2004-05-05
No. 4D03-277
Stone, J., Stevenson, J., Hazouri, J.
873 So. 2d 450 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2004)

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

Appellant's conviction for trafficking in oxycodone with a three-year mandatory minimum was affirmed because the 1999 legislation authorizing the mandatory minimum did not violate the single subject rule, and no ex post facto violation occurred.


Holding

The three-year mandatory minimum for trafficking in oxycodone imposed under 1999 legislation does not violate the single subject rule or the ex post facto clause.


Facts & Procedural History

Michael Delprete pled no contest to March 2001 charges of trafficking in oxycodone and unlawfully filling a prescription, and was sentenced to fifteen…

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
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Delprete pled no contest to March 2001 charges of trafficking in oxy-codone and unlawfully filling a prescription.

With respect to the trafficking charge, Delprete was sentenced to fifteen years incarceration with a three-year mandatory minimum.

On appeal, as he did below, Delprete contends that the imposition of the three-year mandatory minimum for the 2001 trafficking offense is unconstitutional because (1) the 1999 legislation authorizing the mandatory minimum1 violated the single subject rule and (2) any retroactive application of the 2002 legislative re-enactment of the mandatory minimum 2 violates the ex post facto clause. In Hernandez-Molina v. State, 860 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(en banc), decided subsequent to the filing of Delprete’s initial brief, this court held that the legislation authorizing the mandatory minimum was not enacted in violation of the single subject rule. See also Pitts v. State, 855 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); State v. Franklin, 836 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA), review granted, 854 So. 2d 659 (Fla.2003).

Thus, we affirm Delprete’s sentence. As we did in Hernandez-Molina, however, we certify conflict with the Second District’s decision in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002).

STONE, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . See Ch. 99-188, § 9, at 1058, Laws of Fla. . See Ch. 02-212, §§ 1, 4, at 1454-60, 1499, Laws of Fla.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw