Spann v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Spann v. State

755 So. 2d 100, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 238, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 615, 2000 WL 297847

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 2000

DocketNo. SC94474

StatusPublished

This text of 755 So. 2d 100 (Spann 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

Spann v. State, 755 So. 2d 100, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 238, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 615, 2000 WL 297847 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Spann v. State, 719 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), in which the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Gilbert Edward Spann’s violent career criminal sentence based on its prior decision in Higgs v. State, 695 So.2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In so affirming, the Spann court certified conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, [101]*101§ 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Based on our decision in State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999), in which we held unconstitutional chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, as violative of the single subject rule, we quash the decision below and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on September 12, 1996, the date on which Spann committed the underlying offense in this case.¹ See Thompson, 750 So.2d at 649 (remanding for resentenc-ing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time the defendant committed her offenses).

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., dissents.

¹

. We note that Spann has standing to raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, even assuming the window period for raising such a challenge closed on October 1, 1996, as determined by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Salters v. State, 731 So.2d 826, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 749 So.2d 503 (Fla.1999). Further, even though Spann failed to raise a single subject rule challenge in the trial court, we find that such challenge may be properly addressed in this case for the first time on appeal. Cf. Heggs v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S137, S138, S140 n. 4, - So.2d -, -, - n.4, 2000 WL 178052 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2000); Nelson v. State, 748 So.2d 237, 239-241 (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).

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Spann v. State, 719 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), in which the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Gilbert Edward Spann’s violent career criminal sentence based on its prior decision in Higgs v. State, 695 So.2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In so affirming, the Spann court certified conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, [101]*101§ 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Based on our decision in State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999), in which we held unconstitutional chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, as violative of the single subject rule, we quash the decision below and remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on September 12, 1996, the date on which Spann committed the underlying offense in this case.¹ See Thompson, 750 So.2d at 649 (remanding for resentenc-ing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time the defendant committed her offenses).

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., dissents.

¹

. We note that Spann has standing to raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, even assuming the window period for raising such a challenge closed on October 1, 1996, as determined by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Salters v. State, 731 So.2d 826, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 749 So.2d 503 (Fla.1999). Further, even though Spann failed to raise a single subject rule challenge in the trial court, we find that such challenge may be properly addressed in this case for the first time on appeal. Cf. Heggs v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S137, S138, S140 n. 4, - So.2d -, -, - n.4, 2000 WL 178052 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2000); Nelson v. State, 748 So.2d 237, 239-241 (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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

755 So. 2d 100, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 238, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 615, 2000 WL 297847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spann-v-state-fla-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack