Hutchins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hutchins v. State

761 So. 2d 459, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7228, 2000 WL 763571

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 2000

DocketNo. 4D97-3934

StatusPublished

This text of 761 So. 2d 459 (Hutchins 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

Hutchins v. State, 761 So. 2d 459, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7228, 2000 WL 763571 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Defendant was found guilty of two crimes that occurred on October 24, 1996. He now appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred by sentencing him under chapter 95-182 because it violated the single subject rule.

Because the window period for raising single subject challenges to chapter 95-182 opened on October 1, 1995, and closed on May 24, 1997, the Defendant has standing to raise this issue. See Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667, 669 (Fla.2000). Moreover, he is correct in arguing chapter 95-182 is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule. See State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999). We reverse the Defendant’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on October 24, 1996, the date on which he committed the underlying offenses in this case. See Salters, 758 So.2d at 671.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Defendant was found guilty of two crimes that occurred on October 24, 1996. He now appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred by sentencing him under chapter 95-182 because it violated the single subject rule.

Because the window period for raising single subject challenges to chapter 95-182 opened on October 1, 1995, and closed on May 24, 1997, the Defendant has standing to raise this issue. See Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667, 669 (Fla.2000). Moreover, he is correct in arguing chapter 95-182 is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule. See State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999). We reverse the Defendant’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on October 24, 1996, the date on which he committed the underlying offenses in this case. See Salters, 758 So.2d at 671.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

761 So. 2d 459, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 7228, 2000 WL 763571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchins-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack