JOSEPH W. GORMAN, 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.
Appellant's DWLS conviction is reversed because the statute under which he was charged was invalidated by the Florida Supreme Court as violating the single subject rule, and his offense fell within the period of invalidity.
A defendant charged with DWLS under chapter 98-223 during the period of invalidity (July 1, 1998 to May 21, 2003) is entitled to reversal of conviction.
[1] A defendant convicted under a statute invalidated as violating the single subject rule is entitled to reversal only if the offense occurred during the period between the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Gorman was charged with driving while license suspended based on an event occurring on August 1, 2002, pleaded no contest, and was sentenced by…
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 Driving With A Suspended License cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Gorman was charged with driving while license suspended (DWLS) because of an event occurring on August 1, 2002. The DWLS statute was enacted by chapter 98-223, Laws of Florida, which was later codified as section 322.34(6)(b), Florida Statutes. He pleaded no contest, and the trial court sentenced him on the violation. He appeals from the conviction. We accept the State’s concession of error. The supreme court held chapter 98-223 invalid as violating the single subject rule. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Critchfield, 842 So. 2d 782 (Fla.2003); see also Art. III, § 6, Fla. Const. Only those defendants falling within the period of the invalidity are entitled to relief. Gillman v. State, 860 So. 2d 1099, 1100 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that only defendants who committed the offense from July 1, 1998, until the effective reenactment on May 21, 2003, are entitled to relief under Critchfield); see also Pass v. State, 922 So. 2d 279, 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (following Gillman). Because Gor-man’s offense falls within the period of invalidity, he is entitled to the benefit of Critchfield. We therefore reverse only his DWLS conviction and remand for the entry of an appropriate order consistent with Critchfield.
POLEN, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Johnson, 980 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…have the First, Second, and Fourth District Courts, that the single subject rule violation contained in chapter 98-223 was cured by the enactment of chapter 03-25. See Lescher, 946 So. 2d at 1141-42; Rothauser, 934 So. 2d at 19-20; Gorman v. State, 927 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Fountain, 883 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Gillman v. State, 860 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, the amended version of section 322.271(4) became effective on J…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Critchfield, 842 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2003)
- Hubbard v. State, 842 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2003)
- Jacquelyn Davis v. State, 922 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Smith v. State, 860 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)