WILLY PALMER, 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.
The court held that the 2001 amendment to section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes, was not applied retroactively in violation of ex post facto laws because the appellant was placed on probation after the amendment's effective date, even if the offense occurred before.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, claiming the trial court retroactively applied a 2001 amendment to section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes, violat…
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 Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. Appellant claimed that the trial court’s application of the 2001 amendment to section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes was retroactive in violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws. We do not agree. While the underlying offense for which appellant was placed on probation is alleged to have occurred before the statutory change, appellant was not placed on probation until well after the statutory change. See Harper v. State, 955 So.2d 617, 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). To the extent that our decision conflicts with the First District’s decisions in Frye v. State, 885 So.2d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) and Harris v. State, 893 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) regarding the crucial date, we certify a conflict.1 See Shenfeld v. State, 14 So.3d 1021, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (holding that retroactive application of the 2007 amendment to section 948.06(1)(d), Florida Statutes, did not constitute an ex post facto violation).2
Affirmed.
TAYLOR, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 51 So. 3d 1182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…So. 3d at 102, there is no principled difference in the two statutes as to the legal point in issue. Hence we affirm the judgment and sentence under review on the authority of the reasoning in Shenfeld v. State. See also Palmer v. State, 4D09-3980, 37 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA June 23, 2010); Harper v. State, 955 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Shenfeld v. State, 14 So. 3d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Damien Frye v. State, 885 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Harper v. State, 955 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- King v. State, 893 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Harris v. State, 893 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)