STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD JONES, APPELLEE; STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. MICHAEL ANGLIN, APPELLEE; STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. JOSEPH CARLSON, APPELLEE; STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. CALVIN WILLIAMS, APPELLEE; STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. SAMUEL SANTIAGO, 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 consolidated five cases challenging the constitutionality of the Three-Strike Violent Felony Offender Act under the single subject requirement. The Court quashed the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decisions declaring the statute unconstitutional and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Court's prior holding in Franklin v. State that the statute did not violate the single subject rule.
The Court held that chapter 99-188 does not violate the single subject rule, as established in Franklin v. State. Because no single subject violation occurred, the Court declined to address whether retroactive application of the 2002 legislation would violate ex post facto clauses.
[1] A statute violates the single subject requirement of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution if it embraces more than one subject.
[2] A court's prior determination that a statute is unconstitutional may be revisited and overturned by a higher court.
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“We quash the decisions of the Fifth District in these cases and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Franklin v. State, 887 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.2004), in which we held that chapter 99-188 did not violate the single subject rule.”
States the Court's holding that the Three-Strike statute does not violate the single subject requirement and overturns the Fifth District's contrary ruling.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellees (Jones, Anglin, Carlson, Williams, and Santiago) were convicted under chapter 99-188, the Three-Strike Violent Felony Offender Act. 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 Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, C.J.
We have for review the decisions in these cases, in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal declared chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, known as the “Three-Strike Violent Felony Offender Act,” unconstitutional under the single subject requirement of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. We have jurisdiction, see art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const., and consolidate these cases for purposes of this opinion. In each of these cases, the Fifth District not only held chapter 99-188 unconstitutional, but also receded from its previous conclusion that the constitutional defect was retroactively cured in chapters 2002-208 through 2002-212, Laws of Flori da. See Jones v. State, 872 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (receding in part from Hersey v. State, 831 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)).1
We quash the decisions of the Fifth District in these cases and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Franklin v. State, 887 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.2004), in which we held that chapter 99-188 did not violate the single subject rule. Our decision that no single subject violation occurred renders it unnecessary 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 opinion. See Hersey v. State, No. SC02-2630, 908 So. 2d 1052, 2005 WL 914190 (Fla. April 21, 2005).
QUINCE, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority’s decision to remand these cases based on the reasons espoused 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
-
Hersey v. State, 908 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2005)…auses 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).…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Hersey v. State, 908 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 2005)