DEAUNTE D. REGISTER, 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.
Register challenged a sentencing order imposing a mandatory minimum term for cocaine trafficking, arguing the sentencing statute violated Florida's single subject rule. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion because Register failed to allege facts showing his offense occurred within the relevant legal window for relief.
The court affirmed the trial court's order denying Register's motion because Register failed to allege facts showing his offense occurred within the 'Taylor window'—the period during which the sentencing statute was unconstitutional. However, if Register could establish his offense occurred during that window, he would be entitled to resentencing under the valid law in effect at the time of his offense.
[1] A mandatory minimum sentence imposed under a statute later found unconstitutional may be challenged.
[2] Reenactment of sentencing provisions invalidated by a single-subject rule violation cannot be applied retroactively if it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If Register's offense occurred within the Taylor window, he is entitled to be resentenced under the valid law in effect at the time of the offense.”
Establishes the substantive relief Register could obtain if he properly alleged facts showing his offense occurred during the period when the statute was unconstitutional.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRegister was sentenced to a three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for trafficking in cocaine. The trial court had denied his motion challe…
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 United States Constitution cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Deaunte D. Register challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because Register failed to present a facially sufficient claim, we affirm the trial court’s order. In his motion, Register alleged that the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for trafficking in cocaine was illegally imposed. Register based his claim on our opinion in 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, which provided for the imposition of the mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses, is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution. In denying Register’s motion, the trial court found that “[a]s of April 29, 2002, the Florida Legislature cured the single subject violation by re-enacting the provisions contained in Chapter 99-188 and providing for retroactive application to July 1, 1999.” However, in Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), this court has since held that the reenactment of the sentencing provisions of chapter 99-188 cannot be applied retroactively because this would violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions.
If Register’s offense occurred within the Taylor window, he is entitled to be resen-tenced under the valid law in effect at the time of the offense. See Green, 839 So. 2d 748. However, Register failed to present a facially sufficient claim for relief under rule 3.800(a) since he failed to affirmatively allege that he committed the offense on a date within the Taylor window. See Sims v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We therefore affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to any right Register might have to file a facially sufficient claim. See id.
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Orosco v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Edrick Lee Hines v. State, 838 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)