Case Title: Keith Schumaker v. State of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC00-1131

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2000-10-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-1131
____________
KEITH SCHUMAKER,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[October 5, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Schumaker v. State, 758 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA
2000), wherein the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with Heggs v.
State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), on the issue of standing to challenge
chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, as violative of the single subject rule contained in
article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, §
3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
In Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620, 627 (Fla. 2000), we concluded:
-2-
[O]nly those persons adversely affected by the
amendments made by chapter 95-184 may rely on our
decision here to obtain relief.  Stated another way, in the
sentencing guidelines context, we determine that if a
person’s sentence imposed under the 1995 guidelines
could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines
(without a departure), then that person shall not be
entitled to relief under our decision here.
The record in this case is not clear as to whether the sentence which
Schumaker received under the 1995 guidelines could have been imposed under the
1994 guidelines.  Thus, it is not clear whether Schumaker was adversely affected by
chapter 95-184.
We do note, however, that pursuant to our decision in Trapp v. State, 760
So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000), Schumaker has standing to challenge chapter 95-184, Laws
of Florida, as violative of the single subject rule.  Specifically, we held that the
applicable window period within which to raise a challenge to chapter 95-184
extended from October 1, 1995 through May 24, 1997.  See Trapp, 760 So. 2d at
928 .  Because Schumaker’s offense occurred on May 13 or 14, 1997, we
conclude that he has standing to raise such a claim.
Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand with directions that
the trial court determine whether Schumaker was adversely affected by the passage
of chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida.
-3-
It is so ordered.
SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
WELLS, C.J., dissents.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Certified Direct Conflict
Fourth District - Case No. 4D99-3270 
(Palm Beach County)
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Joseph R. Chloupek, Assistant Public
Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Michael J. Neimand, Chief, Criminal
Law, and M. Rebecca Springer, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida,
for Respondent