Title: Leroy Ricardo Levan v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC96-657
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 25, 2000

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC96657
____________
LEROY RICARDO LEVAN,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[May 25, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Levan v. State, 741 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in
which the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Leroy Ricardo Levan’s
conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a violent career criminal, as well
as his sentence as a violent career criminal.  In affirming the sentence, the Third
District rejected Levan’s challenge to chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, and certified
conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Thompson v. State,
1 The Third District did not indicate that Levan failed to challenge chapter 95-182, Laws
of Florida, 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).
2 Through the passage of chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, the Legislature created the
possession of a firearm offense for which Levan was convicted.  See Ch. 95-182, § 7, at 1673
(creating section 790.235, Florida Statutes).  Levan committed the offense on May 19, 1996, and
he therefore has standing to raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-182 even if the
window period closed on October 1, 1996.  Finally, although Levan challenges only his
sentence–not his conviction–we sua sponte reverse his conviction because our decision in
Thompson rendered the crime for which he was convicted non-existent during the applicable
window period.  Cf., e.g., Tape v. State, 661 So. 2d 1287, 1288-90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
(reversing, sua sponte, defendant’s conviction for attempted first-degree felony murder because
this Court’s decision in State v. Gray, 654 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1995), rendered that offense non-
existent).
-2-
708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).1  See Levan, 741 So. 2d at 612.  We have
jurisdiction.  See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.  Based on our decision in State v.
Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999), in which we held chapter 95-182 to be
unconstitutional as violative of the single subject rule contained in article III, section
6 of the Florida Constitution, we quash the decision below, reverse Levan’s
conviction,2 and remand to the trial court for any further proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion.  See McGowan v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S253
(Fla. Mar. 30, 2000).
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ.,
concur.
WELLS, J., dissents.
-3-
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 of Decisions
Third District - Case No. 3D98-1130
(Dade County)
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public
Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Michael J. Neimand, and Barbara A. Zappi,
Assistant Attorneys General, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida,
for Respondent