Scott v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scott v. State

835 So. 2d 1247, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 760, 2003 WL 187464

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 29, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-5052

StatusPublished

This text of 835 So. 2d 1247 (Scott 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

Scott v. State, 835 So. 2d 1247, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 760, 2003 WL 187464 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Jerry Lee Scott appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Scott argues that his prison releasee reoffender sentence is illegal, basing that argument on our decision in Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The trial court denied his motion, finding that the subsequent reenactment of the statutory amendments invalidated by Taylor applied retroactively to validate Scott’s sentence.

We affirm without discussing the trial court’s reasoning. Taylor only invalidated the proposed amendments to section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1999), not the entire statute. The provisions of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act existing prior to the attempted amendments in 1999 were not invalidated by Taylor, and a sentence imposed pursuant to those provisions is legal. Accordingly, to be entitled to relief, Scott must allege that his sentence comes within the provisions of the amendments. See Sigafoos v. State, 825 So.2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Since Scott has not alleged nor demonstrated that his sentence is illegal under the 1999 amendments, his motion was properly denied.

Affirmed.

FULMER and COVINGTON, JJ., concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Jerry Lee Scott appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Scott argues that his prison releasee reoffender sentence is illegal, basing that argument on our decision in Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The trial court denied his motion, finding that the subsequent reenactment of the statutory amendments invalidated by Taylor applied retroactively to validate Scott’s sentence.

We affirm without discussing the trial court’s reasoning. Taylor only invalidated the proposed amendments to section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1999), not the entire statute. The provisions of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act existing prior to the attempted amendments in 1999 were not invalidated by Taylor, and a sentence imposed pursuant to those provisions is legal. Accordingly, to be entitled to relief, Scott must allege that his sentence comes within the provisions of the amendments. See Sigafoos v. State, 825 So.2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Since Scott has not alleged nor demonstrated that his sentence is illegal under the 1999 amendments, his motion was properly denied.

Affirmed.

FULMER and COVINGTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 So. 2d 1247, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 760, 2003 WL 187464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack