TEDDRICK MORRISON, 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.
Teddrick Morrison appealed the summary denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court reversed, holding that applying a 2006 amendment to the youthful offender boot camp statute to offenses committed before the amendment's effective date would violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
The court held that applying the 2006 amendment to offenses committed before its effective date would violate the ex post facto prohibition in the Florida Constitution. When Morrison's offenses were committed, a probation violation could result in a sentence no longer than 364 days, and that limitation must apply.
[1] A law that increases punishment beyond what was prescribed when the crime was consummated violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
[2] A youthful offender who successfully completes boot camp and subsequently violates probation may be sentenced to no more than 364 days incarceration if the offenses were…
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“The Ex Post Facto Clause is triggered when a law 'increases punishment beyond what was prescribed when the crime was consummated.'”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether retroactive application of a statute violates the ex post facto prohibition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorrison was sentenced to six years in prison for three 2004 cases after violating community control. He had successfully completed boot camp as a you…
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 Probation Violation Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. We reverse.
The defendant alleged that he was illegally sentenced to six years in prison in connection with three 2004 cases after violating community control. He argues that, pursuant to sections 958.04(2)(b) and 958.045(5)(c), Florida Statutes (2004), the court was limited to sentencing him to no more than 364 days because he had successfully completed boot camp. He cited a number of cases, including Thomas v. State, 825 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), in which the court held that if a youthful offender successfully completes boot camp and then violates probation, the trial court may impose a term of incarceration that does not exceed 364 days. See §§ 958.04(2)(b), 958.045(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004).
The trial court summarily denied the motion without explanation. The defendant appealed.
The State argues that the trial court correctly applied an amendment to section 958.045, which became effective on July 1, 2006. That section now provides that a youthful offender, who violates probation following successful completion of the boot camp program, may be sentenced to any sentence that could have been imposed originally. See Ch. 2006-270, § 1, at 2841-42, Laws of Fla. The offenses for which the defendant was sentenced were committed prior to the effective date of the amendment. To apply the 2006 amendment to those offenses would violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Art. I, § 10, Fla. Const. (“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.”). “The Ex Post Facto Clause is triggered when a law ‘increases punishment beyond what was prescribed when the crime was consummated.’ ” Meola v. Dep’t of Corr., 732 So. 2d 1029, 1032 (Fla.1998) (quoting Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 441, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997)) (italicized emphasis added in Meóla).
When the defendant’s offenses were committed, a violation of probation could result in a sentence no longer than 364 days. Compare Windom v. State, 835 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Accord ingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and Remanded.
STEVENSON, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lamore v. State, 86 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…date of the amendment, thus the earlier version of the statute must apply. One court has held that “[t]o apply the 2006 amendment to those [prior] offenses would violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.” Morrison v. State, 978 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In response to this court’s order to show cause why the postconviction court’s order should not be reversed, the State argued that the amended version of the statute should apply to Lamore’s case. Although Lamore’s unique…
-
Reginald v. Davis, Jr., 16 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…he was illegally sentenced, the trial court ruled that the sentences were legal under section 958.045(5)(c), as amended in 2006. This legal ruling was erroneous because it violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. See Morrison v. State, 978 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (applying 2006 amendment of section 958.045(5)(c), Florida Statutes, to youthful offender originally sentenced under earlier version of statute upon revocation of probation following successful completion of boot camp, viola…
-
Deonno Miller v. State, 77 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…n boot camp on convictions for offenses that occurred prior to July 1, 2006, the sentences imposed on the revocation of his youthful offender probation indeed violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. See Morrison v. State, 978 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see also Cutler v. State, 927 So. 2d 249, 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Blaxton v. State, 868 So. 2d 620, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Lee v. State, 884 So. 2d 460, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (providing that an offender who completes a c…
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
- Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1997)
- Meola v. Dep't OF Corr., 732 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1998)
- Thomas v. State, 825 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Windom v. State, 835 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)