Shiver v. State

838 So. 2d 1263, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3368, 2003 WL 1092786
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Shiver v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 900 So. 2d 615
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 14, 2003·No. No. 5D03-125·Published

Opinion

PALMER, J.

We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence. We certify, however, as we did in Hersey v. State, 831 So.2d 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), the question of whether the enactment of Chapter 02-210, Laws of [1264]*1264Florida, retroactively cured the single subject violation of Chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida. We further acknowledge that the Second District has certified conflict with our decision in Hersey. See Green v. State, 839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)(holding that Chapter 02-212 cannot be applied retroactively, for to do so would violate the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Florida constitutions).

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W., and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

Shiver v. State, 838 So. 2d 1263, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3368, 2003 WL 1092786 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

838 So. 2d 1263 (Shiver v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Green v. State
839 So. 2d 748 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Hersey v. State
831 So. 2d 679 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)