Winkler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Winkler v. State

842 So. 2d 269, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4893, 2003 WL 1856427

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 11, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-4904

StatusPublished

This text of 842 So. 2d 269 (Winkler 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

Winkler v. State, 842 So. 2d 269, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4893, 2003 WL 1856427 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

James Joseph Winkler challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He argues that his sentence as a prison releasee reof-fender is illegal based on Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002). Taylor held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, was unconstitutional on single subject grounds. Chapter 99-188 contained an amendment to the Prison Releasee Reof-fender Punishment Act broadening the definition of a prison releasee reoffender to include a defendant who commits a listed offense while he is serving a prison sentence or is on escape status. See ch. 99-188, § 2. Winkler’s claim is insufficient because he has not alleged that he was affected by this amendment and that he could not have been sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender pursuant to the statute as it existed prior to the enactment of chapter 99-188. 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).

Affirmed.

FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

James Joseph Winkler challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He argues that his sentence as a prison releasee reof-fender is illegal based on Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002). Taylor held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, was unconstitutional on single subject grounds. Chapter 99-188 contained an amendment to the Prison Releasee Reof-fender Punishment Act broadening the definition of a prison releasee reoffender to include a defendant who commits a listed offense while he is serving a prison sentence or is on escape status. See ch. 99-188, § 2. Winkler’s claim is insufficient because he has not alleged that he was affected by this amendment and that he could not have been sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender pursuant to the statute as it existed prior to the enactment of chapter 99-188. 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).

Affirmed.

FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

842 So. 2d 269, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4893, 2003 WL 1856427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winkler-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack