Ferrell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ferrell v. State

753 So. 2d 694, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2744, 2000 WL 276040

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-1152

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 753 So. 2d 694 (Ferrell 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

Ferrell v. State, 753 So. 2d 694, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2744, 2000 WL 276040 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Defendant pled no contest to three crimes that occurred on October 19, 1996, and November 8, 1996. He now appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court committed fundamental error by sentencing him under the 1995 sentencing guidelines because chapter 95-184 violated the single subject rule. While we recognize that the Florida Supreme Court has held chapter 95-184 to be unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule, see Heggs v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S137, — So.2d -, 2000 WL 178052 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2000), we hold that the Defendant lacks standing to raise a constitutional challenge to chapter 95-184 because the crimes for which he was convicted occurred after October 1, 1996, when the constitutional defect was cured by the reenactment of the sentencing guidelines via chapter 96-388, see Bortel v. State, 743 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Accordingly, the Defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

WARNER, C.J., DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Defendant pled no contest to three crimes that occurred on October 19, 1996, and November 8, 1996. He now appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court committed fundamental error by sentencing him under the 1995 sentencing guidelines because chapter 95-184 violated the single subject rule. While we recognize that the Florida Supreme Court has held chapter 95-184 to be unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule, see Heggs v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S137, — So.2d -, 2000 WL 178052 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2000), we hold that the Defendant lacks standing to raise a constitutional challenge to chapter 95-184 because the crimes for which he was convicted occurred after October 1, 1996, when the constitutional defect was cured by the reenactment of the sentencing guidelines via chapter 96-388, see Bortel v. State, 743 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Accordingly, the Defendant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

WARNER, C.J., DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

753 So. 2d 694, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2744, 2000 WL 276040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferrell-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack