STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CEDRIC GREEN, 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 Florida Supreme Court quashed the Second District Court of Appeal's decision invalidating retroactive application of 2002 legislation on ex post facto grounds. The court held that because chapter 99-188 does not violate Florida's single subject requirement (contrary to the Second District's reliance on Taylor), the ex post facto issue became moot and did not require resolution.
The court quashed the Second District's decision and remanded, holding that chapter 99-188 does not violate the single subject requirement. Because this foundational premise of the Second District's ex post facto analysis was incorrect, the ex post facto issue became moot and did not require resolution.
[1] A statute that violates the single subject requirement of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution is invalid.
[2] Retroactive application of legislation found to violate the single subject clause may also violate ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Adhering to its decision in Taylor that chapter 99-188 violates the single subject clause, the Second District in Green held that retroactive application of the 2002 legislation would violate the ex post facto clauses of the Florida and United States Constitutions.”
Describes the Second District's holding that formed the basis for reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Legislature originally enacted chapter 99-188 effective July 1, 1999. After the Second District Court of Appeal held in Taylor v. State that chapt…
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 Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, C.J.
We have for review Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748(Fla. 2d DCA 2003), which declares invalid a state statute.1 In Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544(Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002), the Second District Court of Appeal held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, violates the single subject requirement of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. In 2002, in response to Taylor, the Legislature reenacted most of the provisions in chapter 99-188 in five different laws. Each law specified that its provisions “shall be applied retroactively to July 1, 1999,” the date chapter 99-188 took effect, or “as soon thereafter as the Constitution of the State of Florida and the Constitution of the United States may permit.” 2
Adhering to its decision in Taylor that chapter 99-188 violates the single subject clause, the Second District in Green held that retroactive application of the 2002 leg islation would violate the ex post facto clauses of the Florida and United States Constitutions. In Franklin State, No. SC03-413 (Fla. Sept. 30, 2004), 887 So. 2d 1063, 2004 WL 2197021, this Court held that chapter 99-188 does not violate the single subject requirement of article III, section 6. In so doing, we disapproved Taylor, the case upon which the Second District’s decision in Green relied.
Accordingly, we quash the Second District’s decision in Green and remand for proceedings consistent with our decision in Franklin. This disposition moots the issue of whether the retroactive application of the 2002 legislation to crimes occurring before that date would be a violation of the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Therefore, in light of our decision in Franklin, we do not address this issue.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. . The 2002 Legislature divided most of the sections of chapter 99-188 into five separate bills that became law on April 29, 2002. See ch.2002-208; 2002-209; 2002-210; 2002-211; 2002-212, Laws of Fla. (collectively referred to as the "2002 enactments”). The Legislature did not reenact sections 11 and 13 of chapter 99-188, which were the sections the Second District in Taylor found to be in violation of article III, section 6.
QUINCE, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the same reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Franklin State, No. SC03M13 (Fla. Sept. 30, 2004), 887 So. 2d 1063, 2004 WL 2197021.
ANSTEAD and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Herndon, 894 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2005)…onsolidate these cases for purposes of this opinion, summarily quash the decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decisions in Franklin v. State, 887 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.2004), and State v. Green, 887 So. 2d 1089 (Fla.2004). We decline to address the additional issues, including those relating to resentencing, raised in several of these cases. It is so ordered. WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.…1 / 2
-
Hersey v. State, 908 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2005)…2002. The other cases under review herein were decided accordingly.1 In each case, the Fifth District certified either a question of great public importance or conflict with Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), quashed, State v. Green, 887 So. 2d 1089 (Fla.2004), on the constitutional validity of the retroactive cure. We have jurisdiction, see art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const., and consolidate these cases for disposition. We expressly disapprove of the Fifth District’s conclusion that a single…1 / 2
-
State v. Jones, 908 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2005)…ry for us to address the issue of whether the retroactive application of the 2002 legislation to crimes occurring before that date would be a violation of the ex post .facto clauses of the Florida and United States Constitutions. See State v. Green, 887 So. 2d 1089, 1089-90 (Fla.2004). It is so ordered. WELLS, ANSTEAD, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. LEWIS, J., dissents. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion. . We also have for review Hersey and its Fifth District progeny, which we address in a separate op…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Franklin v. State, 887 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2004)