Garcia v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Garcia v. State

760 So. 2d 931, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 433, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1102, 2000 WL 702373

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 2000

DocketNo. SC95407

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 760 So. 2d 931 (Garcia 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

Garcia v. State, 760 So. 2d 931, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 433, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1102, 2000 WL 702373 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Garcia v. State, 728 So.2d 1220 (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 Garcia 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 So.2d 620, 624 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 the district court’s affirmance of Garcia’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines in effect before the relevant amendments made in chapter 95-184 became effective.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 Garcia v. State, 728 So.2d 1220 (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 Garcia 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 So.2d 620, 624 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 the district court’s affirmance of Garcia’s sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines in effect before the relevant amendments made in chapter 95-184 became effective.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 931, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 433, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1102, 2000 WL 702373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-state-fla-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack