Bronson v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Bronson v. State

768 So. 2d 439, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 651, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1752, 2000 WL 1227726

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 2000

DocketNos. SC00-708, SC00-709

StatusPublished

This text of 768 So. 2d 439 (Bronson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bronson v. State, 768 So. 2d 439, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 651, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1752, 2000 WL 1227726 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Bronson v. State, 751 So.2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), and Bronson v. State, 751 So.2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000),¹ wherein the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the Second District’s decision in Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), approved, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999), on the issue of standing to challenge chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, as violative of the single subject rule contained in article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Based on our recent decision in Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667 (Fla.2000), and the State’s confession of error, we quash the decisions below to the extent that they are inconsistent with Salters, and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on the date of the offenses.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, C.J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Bronson v. State, 751 So.2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), and Bronson v. State, 751 So.2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000),¹ wherein the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the Second District’s decision in Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), approved, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999), on the issue of standing to challenge chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, as violative of the single subject rule contained in article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Based on our recent decision in Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667 (Fla.2000), and the State’s confession of error, we quash the decisions below to the extent that they are inconsistent with Salters, and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on the date of the offenses.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, C.J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

768 So. 2d 439, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 651, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1752, 2000 WL 1227726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bronson-v-state-fla-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack