Title: State of Florida v. Henry Williams

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC94785
____________
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellant,
vs.
HENRY WILLIAMS,
Appellee.
[May 18, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Williams v. State, 740 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), in
which the Second District Court of Appeal followed its prior decision in  Thompson
v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), in holding that chapter 95-182, Laws
of Florida, is unconstitutional 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)(1), Fla. Const.  Based on our decision in State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643
(Fla. 1999), in which we held unconstitutional chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, as
1 Based on our decision in Salters v. State, No. SC95663 (Fla. May 11, 2000), we
determine that Williams has standing to challenge chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, on single
subject rule grounds.  Further, even though Williams 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.  Cf. Heggs v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S137, S138, S140 n. 4 (Fla. Feb. 17,
2000); Nelson v. State, 748 So. 2d 237, 241-42 (Fla. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 950 (2000);
State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1, 3-4 (Fla. 1993).  Finally, we reverse the decision below to the
limited extent that it remanded this cause for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in
effect at the time that Williams was sentenced.
-2-
violative of the single subject rule, we affirm the decision below reversing Williams’
violent career criminal sentence and remand this cause for resentencing in
accordance with the valid laws in effect on November 27, 1996, the date on which
Williams committed the underlying offense in this case.1  See Thompson, 750 So. 2d
at 649 (remanding for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the
time the defendant committed her offenses).
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ.,
concur.
WELLS, J., dissents.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF
FILED, DETERMINED.
An Appeal from the District Court of Appeal - Statutory or Constitutional Invalidity
Second District - Case No. 2D97-04516
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Chief of Criminal Law, Tampa, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Assistant Attorney
-3-
General, Tampa, Florida,
for Appellant
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public
Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida,
for Appellee