EUSEBIO LAZARO MEDINA, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, violates Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Medina's convictions and sentences, certifying a question about the constitutionality of Chapter 95-184. M…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Single Subject Rule (Fla. Const. Art. Iii, § 6) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Medina v. State, 743 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in which the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Eusebio Lazaro Medina’s convictions and sentences, and certified the following question to this Court as a matter of great public importance:
DOES CHAPTER 95-184, LAWS OF FLORIDA VIOLATE ARTICLE III, SECTION 6 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla Const. Based on our recent decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), in which we held chapter 95-184 to be unconstitutional as violative of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution, we answer the certified question in the affirmative. Accordingly, we quash that portion of the decision below that affirmed Medina’s sentences. We remand with directions that the sentences be reversed and remanded for resentencing in accordance with the sentencing guidelines in effect before the relevant amendments made in chapter 95-184 became effective.1
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., dissents.
. Medina committed the underlying offenses in this case on December 14, 1996, and he therefore has standing to challenge chapter 95-184 on single subject rule grounds. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000). Further, even though Medina 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. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620, 623, 624 n. 4 (Fla.2000); cf. Nelson v. State, 748 So. 2d 237, 241-42 (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).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eusebio Medina v. State, 88 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…under the 1994 guidelines pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). On consideration of a certified question from this Court, the Supreme Court agreed with Medina’s position and the cause was remanded for re-sentencing. Medina v. State, 760 So. 2d 929 (Fla.2000). At the October 23, 2000, resentencing, the trial court stated that it awarded Medina credit for all time served, but the written sentence only awarded the 566 days credit for time served in jail prior to imposition of his original senten…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Nelson v. State, 748 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1999)
- Eusebio Lazaro Medina v. State, 743 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)