McCarthy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCarthy v. State

835 So. 2d 367, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 722, 2003 WL 161912

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 24, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-2928

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 835 So. 2d 367 (McCarthy 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

McCarthy v. State, 835 So. 2d 367, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 722, 2003 WL 161912 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

Richard W. McCarthy challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). McCarthy argues that his sentences as a prison releasee reoffender are illegal based on Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed by 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002). Taylor held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, was unconstitutional because it was enacted in violation of the single subject rule. The effective date of the Prison Releasee Reof-fender Punishment Act¹ is May 30, 1997. Jefferson v. State, 777 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Chapter 99-188 broadened the definition of a prison releasee reoffen-[368]*368der to include a defendant who commits a listed offense while serving a prison sentence or is on escape status. See ch. 99-188, § 2, at 1041, Laws of Fla. Because McCarthy has not alleged that he was affected by the amendments to the prison releasee reoffender statute and that he could not have been sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender pursuant to the statute in existence prior to the passage of chapter 99-188, his claim is facially insufficient. See Bush v. State, 823 So.2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that the validly enacted statutes in effect prior to the enactment of chapter 99-188 control sentencing). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.

ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.

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

WHATLEY, Judge.

Richard W. McCarthy challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). McCarthy argues that his sentences as a prison releasee reoffender are illegal based on Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed by 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002). Taylor held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, was unconstitutional because it was enacted in violation of the single subject rule. The effective date of the Prison Releasee Reof-fender Punishment Act¹ is May 30, 1997. Jefferson v. State, 777 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Chapter 99-188 broadened the definition of a prison releasee reoffen-[368]*368der to include a defendant who commits a listed offense while serving a prison sentence or is on escape status. See ch. 99-188, § 2, at 1041, Laws of Fla. Because McCarthy has not alleged that he was affected by the amendments to the prison releasee reoffender statute and that he could not have been sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender pursuant to the statute in existence prior to the passage of chapter 99-188, his claim is facially insufficient. See Bush v. State, 823 So.2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that the validly enacted statutes in effect prior to the enactment of chapter 99-188 control sentencing). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.

ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 So. 2d 367, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 722, 2003 WL 161912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack