Carson v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Carson v. State

760 So. 2d 930, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 433, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1103, 2000 WL 702383

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 2000

DocketNo. SC95765

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 760 So. 2d 930 (Carson 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

Carson v. State, 760 So. 2d 930, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 433, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1103, 2000 WL 702383 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Carson v. State, 731 So.2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), wherein the Fifth District Court of Appeal cited as controlling authority Maddox v. State, 708 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), which was then pending on review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981). Based on our decision in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000), we determine that Carson may properly raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, for the first time on appeal. See also Heggs v. State, 759 [931]*931So.2d 620, 623 n. 4 (Fla.2000); cf. Nelson v. State, 748 So.2d 237, 241-42 (Fla.1999), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 950, 145 L.Ed.2d 825 (2000); State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1, 3-4 (Fla.1993). Further, based on our decision in Heggs in which we held chapter 95-184 to be unconstitutional as violative of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution, we quash that portion of the district court’s decision that affirmed Carson’s sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on February 10, 1996, the date on which Carson committed the underlying offenses in this case.¹

It is so ordered.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Carson v. State, 731 So.2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), wherein the Fifth District Court of Appeal cited as controlling authority Maddox v. State, 708 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), which was then pending on review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981). Based on our decision in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000), we determine that Carson may properly raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, for the first time on appeal. See also Heggs v. State, 759 [931]*931So.2d 620, 623 n. 4 (Fla.2000); cf. Nelson v. State, 748 So.2d 237, 241-42 (Fla.1999), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 950, 145 L.Ed.2d 825 (2000); State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1, 3-4 (Fla.1993). Further, based on our decision in Heggs in which we held chapter 95-184 to be unconstitutional as violative of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution, we quash that portion of the district court’s decision that affirmed Carson’s sentences and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on February 10, 1996, the date on which Carson committed the underlying offenses in this case.¹

It is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

760 So. 2d 930, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 433, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1103, 2000 WL 702383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carson-v-state-fla-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack