Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellate case involves an appellant challenging the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellant contends that his designation as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) was improperly based on the amendments introduced by chapter 99-188, which was found unconstitutional in Taylor v. State for violating the single subject rule. The State acknowledges that, while the appellant qualified as an HVFO under the amendments, he did not meet the criteria under the valid version of section 775.084 at the time of his offenses. The court agrees with the appellant, referencing the invalidation of retroactive reenactments of chapter 99-188 by Green v. State, and reverses the trial court's order. The case is remanded for correction of the sentences, instructing the lower court to strike the HVFO designations and minimum mandatory terms if the appellant does not qualify under the 1998 statute. Additionally, the court certifies conflict with State v. Franklin and other cases, highlighting jurisdictional disagreement over chapter 99-188's constitutionality. The decision is concurred by Judges Whatley and Canady.
Legal Issues Addressed
Certification of Conflictsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court certified conflict with other cases that upheld the constitutionality of chapter 99-188, indicating disagreement among jurisdictions on this issue.
Reasoning: The court also certifies conflict with State v. Franklin, which upheld chapter 99-188's constitutionality, and notes conflicts with several other cases, including Carlson v. State and Lecorn v. State.
Correction of Illegal Sentences under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed the appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, determining that the habitual violent felony offender designations were improperly applied under an invalidated statute.
Reasoning: Frank H. Mills appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Habitual Violent Felony Offender Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the appellant did not qualify as a habitual violent felony offender under the valid version of section 775.084 at the time of his offenses, necessitating a correction of sentences.
Reasoning: The State concedes that Mills qualifies as an HVFO under the amendments from chapter 99-188, but not under the valid version of section 775.084 at the time of his offenses.
Unconstitutionality of Chapter 99-188subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court relied on precedents that declared chapter 99-188 unconstitutional for violating the single subject rule, affecting the appellant's sentencing.
Reasoning: He argues that his habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) sentences are illegal based on the precedent set in Taylor v. State, which found chapter 99-188 unconstitutional for violating the single subject rule.