Venero v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Venero v. State

768 So. 2d 442, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 651, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1745, 2000 WL 1227716

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 2000

DocketNo. SC99-60

StatusPublished

This text of 768 So. 2d 442 (Venero 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

Venero v. State, 768 So. 2d 442, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 651, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1745, 2000 WL 1227716 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Venero v. State, 741 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), wherein the district court certified conflict with the Second District’s decision in Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), approved, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999), on the issue of standing to challenge chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, on single subject rule grounds. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Since the issuance of the Third District’s decision below, this Court has resolved the asserted conflict. In Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667, 671 (Fla.2000), we conclusively determined that those who seek to challenge the “violent career criminal sentencing provisions enacted by chapter 95-182 have standing to do so if the relevant criminal offense or offenses occurred on or after October 1, 1995, and before May 24, 1997.” Thus, consistent with our Salters decision, we determine that because Vene-ro committed the offenses he was convicted of on October 31, 1997, he lacks standing to raise a single subject rule challenge [443]*443to chapter 95-182. Accordingly, we approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Venero v. State, 741 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), wherein the district court certified conflict with the Second District’s decision in Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), approved, 750 So.2d 643 (Fla.1999), on the issue of standing to challenge chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, on single subject rule grounds. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Since the issuance of the Third District’s decision below, this Court has resolved the asserted conflict. In Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667, 671 (Fla.2000), we conclusively determined that those who seek to challenge the “violent career criminal sentencing provisions enacted by chapter 95-182 have standing to do so if the relevant criminal offense or offenses occurred on or after October 1, 1995, and before May 24, 1997.” Thus, consistent with our Salters decision, we determine that because Vene-ro committed the offenses he was convicted of on October 31, 1997, he lacks standing to raise a single subject rule challenge [443]*443to chapter 95-182. Accordingly, we approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

768 So. 2d 442, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 651, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1745, 2000 WL 1227716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/venero-v-state-fla-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack