DEMEATRICE CUBBY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Affirmed denial of motion to correct illegal sentence where defendant failed to allege he was affected by the unconstitutional amendments to the prison releasee reoffender statute and could have been sentenced under the pre-amendment version.
A defendant's claim that his prison releasee reoffender sentence is illegal under Taylor v. State is facially insufficient when he does not allege he was affected by the unconstitutional amendments or that he could not have been sentenced under the validly enacted pre-amendment statute.
[1] A defendant's challenge to a prison releasee reoffender sentence based on unconstitutional amendments to the statute is facially insufficient when the defendant does not…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDemeatrice Cubby was sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender and filed a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Pro…
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 Facially Insufficient Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Demeatrice Cubby challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Cubby argues that his sentence as a prison releasee reoffender is illegal based on Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Taylor held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, was unconstitutional since it was enacted in violation of the single subject rule. The effective date of the prison releasee reoffender statute is May 30,1997. Jefferson v. State, 111 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Chapter 99-188 broadened the definition of a prison releasee reoffender to include a defendant who commits a listed offense while serving a prison sentence or is on escape status. See ch. 99-188, § 2. Since Cubby has not alleged that he was affected by the amendments to the prison releasee reof-fender statute nor has he alleged that he could not have been sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender pursuant to the statute in existence prior to the passage of chapter 99-188, his claim is facially insufficient. 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). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.
Affirmed.
FULMER and COVINGTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. State, 841 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ged that he was affected by the amendments to the prison releasee reoffender statute, this claim is facially insufficient. See Lindsey v. State, 839 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); McCarthy v. State, 835 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cubby v. State, 835 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm as to this issue. Powell also claims that his sentence violates double jeopardy because the enhancement of his sentence contains two punishments for one criminal episode. However, he does not explain the…
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Bush v. State, 823 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)