From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crawford v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
May 18, 2000
759 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)

Opinion

No. SC96711.

Opinion filed May 18, 2000.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions — First District — No. 1D97-2297 (Duval County).

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Respondent.


We have for review Crawford v. State, 743 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), in which the First District Court of Appeal expressly declared constitutional chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, determining that such chapter law does not violate the single subject rule contained in article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. In so ruling, the First District 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.See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), (4), Fla. Const. Based on our decision inState 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 this cause for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on January 5 and 6, 1997, the date on which Crawford committed the underlying offenses in this case. See Thompson, 750 So.2d at 649 (remanding for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time the defendant committed her offenses).

Based on our decision in Salters v. State, No. SC95663 (Fla. May 11, 2000), we determine that Crawford has standing to challenge chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, on single subject rule grounds. Further, even though Crawford 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 (Fla. Feb. 17, 2000); cf. Nelson v. State, 748 So.2d 237, 241-42 (Fla. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 950 (2000); State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1, 3-4 (Fla. 1993).

It is so ordered.

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

WELLS, J., dissents.


Summaries of

Crawford v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
May 18, 2000
759 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)
Case details for

Crawford v. State

Case Details

Full title:LASHAWN MARTEZ CRAWFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: May 18, 2000

Citations

759 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)