Battles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Battles v. State

846 So. 2d 1191, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7899, 2003 WL 21219040

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 2003

DocketNo. 2D03-27

StatusPublished

This text of 846 So. 2d 1191 (Battles v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Battles v. State, 846 So. 2d 1191, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7899, 2003 WL 21219040 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

FULMER, Judge.

Hazel Battles appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Battles alleged that his habitual violent felony offender minimum mandatory sentence is illegal as a result of our opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002), which held chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, unconstitutional in violation of the single subject rule. Battles claimed that chapter 99-188 allowed the sentencing court to impose a minimum mandatory sentence. The trial court denied this claim, stating that the legislature cured the single subject violation by retroactively reenacting chapter 99-188.

In Green v. State, 839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), this court held that the legislature’s retroactive reenactment of chapter 99-188 was invalid. Therefore, Battles would be entitled to relief under Taylor if his sentence was affected by the amendments in chapter 99-188. The minimum mandatory sentencing provisions for habitual violent felony offenders were already present in section 775.084, Florida Statutes, when the legislature adopted chapter 99-188, and they were not affected by the amendments in chapter 99-188. See § 775.084(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997); ch. 99-188, § 3, at 1049. Therefore, Battles is not entitled to relief on this basis.

However, chapter 99-188 did amend the habitual violent felony offender statute to include defendants who have committed a felony while serving, or within five years of serving, a court-ordered or lawfully imposed supervision that is the result of a conviction for an enumerated felony. See ch. 99-188, § 3, at 1043. Battles may be entitled to relief if he qualified as a habitual violent felony offender under this amendment. Therefore, we affirm without prejudice to any right Battles may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion seeking relief on this basis.

Affirmed.

STRINGER and CANADY, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FULMER, Judge.

Hazel Battles appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Battles alleged that his habitual violent felony offender minimum mandatory sentence is illegal as a result of our opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002), which held chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, unconstitutional in violation of the single subject rule. Battles claimed that chapter 99-188 allowed the sentencing court to impose a minimum mandatory sentence. The trial court denied this claim, stating that the legislature cured the single subject violation by retroactively reenacting chapter 99-188.

In Green v. State, 839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), this court held that the legislature’s retroactive reenactment of chapter 99-188 was invalid. Therefore, Battles would be entitled to relief under Taylor if his sentence was affected by the amendments in chapter 99-188. The minimum mandatory sentencing provisions for habitual violent felony offenders were already present in section 775.084, Florida Statutes, when the legislature adopted chapter 99-188, and they were not affected by the amendments in chapter 99-188. See § 775.084(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997); ch. 99-188, § 3, at 1049. Therefore, Battles is not entitled to relief on this basis.

However, chapter 99-188 did amend the habitual violent felony offender statute to include defendants who have committed a felony while serving, or within five years of serving, a court-ordered or lawfully imposed supervision that is the result of a conviction for an enumerated felony. See ch. 99-188, § 3, at 1043. Battles may be entitled to relief if he qualified as a habitual violent felony offender under this amendment. Therefore, we affirm without prejudice to any right Battles may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion seeking relief on this basis.

Affirmed.

STRINGER and CANADY, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

846 So. 2d 1191, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7899, 2003 WL 21219040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battles-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack