SCOTT HERSEY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; HOWARD H. LEWIS, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; TONY DERAMOUS OLIVER, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; KYLE SHIVER, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; ROBERT CLAYTON, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; HENRY L. FILLYAW, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; ANA M. PENA, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; PATRICK G. TAYLOR, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT; ALBERT H. LAWHON, PETITIONER, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Multiple petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Florida's Three-Strike Violent Felony Offender Act. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fifth District Court of Appeal's conclusion that the Act violated the single subject clause of the Florida Constitution, finding no constitutional infirmity and thus no need to address whether retroactive curative legislation would violate ex post facto protections.
The Act did not violate the single subject clause of the Florida Constitution. Accordingly, the Court did not need to address whether retroactive application of curative legislation would violate the ex post facto clauses. The sentences imposed pursuant to the Act were valid, and no remand was necessary.
[1] A statute that violates the single subject clause of the Florida Constitution may be retroactively cured by subsequent legislation.
[2] Legislation enacted in 2002 retroactively cured any constitutional infirmity in the "Three-Strike Violent Felony Offender Act" that arose from a single subject clause vio…
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“We expressly disapprove of the Fifth District's conclusion that a single subject violation occurred.”
Establishes that the Court rejected the lower court's constitutional analysis on the primary issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNine defendants were convicted and sentenced under chapter 99-188, the Three-Strike Violent Felony Offender Act. The Fifth District Court of Appeal fo…
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.
PARIENTE, C.J.
We have for review the decisions in these cases, which concern the constitutionality of chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, known as the “Three-Strike Violent Felony Offender Act” (the Act). In Hersey v. State, 831 So. 2d 679, 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), the Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded that the Act violated the single subject clause in article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution, but ultimately upheld the sentence imposed pursuant to chapter 99-188 on grounds that the Act’s infirmity was retroactively cured by legislation enacted in 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 subject violation occurred. See Franklin v. State, 887 So. 2d 1063, 1067 (Fla.2004) (holding that chapter 99-188 did not violate the single subject rule). Our conclusion that no single subject violation occurred renders it unnecessary for us to address whether the retroactive application of the 2002 legislation to crimes occurring before that legislation took effect 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, 1090 (Fla.2004). Because the Fifth District also determined that these sentences were valid, albeit on different grounds, these eases need not be remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, ANSTEAD, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. LEWIS, J., dissents.
QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.
. The Fifth District ultimately receded from Hersey and held that the 2002 legislation could not retroactively cure the single subject violation without violating the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions. See Jones v. State, 872 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). We also have Jones and its Fifth District progeny for review, and address those cases in a separate opinion. See State v. Jones, No. SC04-706, 908 So. 2d 1054, 2005 WL 914192 (Fla. April 21, 2005).
QUINCE, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the same reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Franklin v. State, 887 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.2004).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jones, 908 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2005)…ELLS, 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 opinion. See Hersey v. State, No. SC02-2630, 908 So. 2d 1052, 2005 WL 914190 (Fla. April 21, 2005).…
Authorities Cited
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Hersey v. State, 831 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Franklin v. State, 887 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2004)
- Jones v. State, 872 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- State v. Green, 887 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2004)
- State v. Jones, 908 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2005)