Title: Andrew Busby v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC00-402
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: July 14, 2000

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-402
____________
ANDREW BUSBY,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[July 14, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
The Court has for review Busby v. State, No. 4D98-2784, 2000 WL 172860
(Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 16, 2000), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal
certified conflict with the Second District’s decision in Thompson v. State, 708 So.
2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), on the issue of standing to challenge chapter 95-182,
Laws of Florida, as violative of the single subject rule contained in article III,
section 6 of the Florida Constitution.  The Court has jurisdiction.  See Art. V, §
3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
-2-
The State of Florida charged Andrew Busby with six offenses, all of which
occurred on December 13, 1996.  Busby was convicted on all six counts and was
sentenced under the habitual violent felony offender statutes as to two counts.   As
to the four other counts,  he was sentenced as a violent career criminal pursuant to
section 775.084(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995).  Busby sought review of his
sentence as a violent career criminal.   
On appeal, Busby argued that chapter 95-182, which created the violent
career criminal sentencing category incorporated into section 775.084, violated the
single subject rule contained in article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution.  The
district court, relying on our recent decision in State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643
(Fla. 1999), agreed that chapter 95-182 violated the single subject rule requirement
contained in Florida’s constitution. See Busby, 2000 WL 172860 at *4.  
Nevertheless, the Fourth District determined that Busby lacked standing to
challenge the validity of chapter 95-182 because the date of the commission of the
crimes was outside the window period within which such  challenge could be made. 
See id. (citing Salters v. State, 731 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(holding that
only those persons who committed their criminal offense on or after October 1,
1995, but before October 1, 1996, had standing to challenge chapter 95-182 on
single subject rule grounds)).  In so doing, the Busby court certified conflict with
-3-
Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), wherein the Second
District held that the window period extended from October 1, 1995, through May
24, 1997. See Busby, 2000 WL 172860 at *4.  Busby seeks review.
Since the issuance of the Fourth District’s decision below, we have resolved
the certified conflict.  In Salters v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S365 (Fla. May 11,
2000), we conclusively determined that those who seek to challenge the “violent
career criminal sentencing provision enacted by chapter 95-182 have standing to do
so if the relevant criminal offense or offenses occurred on or after October 1, 1995,
and before May 24, 1997.”  Thus, consistent with our decision in Salters, because
Andrew Busby committed the offenses charged on December 13, 1996, he does 
have standing to raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-182. 
Accordingly, we quash the decision below  as it relates to the issue of standing. 
Further, we reverse Busby’s violent career criminal sentence and remand for
resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on December 13, 1996, the
date of the offenses.  See Thompson, 750 So. 2d at 649 (remanding for
resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect at the time the defendant
committed the offenses).
It is so ordered.
SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
-4-
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. 4D98-2784
(Broward County)
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Joseph R. Chloupek, Assistant Public
Defender, West Palm Beach, Florida
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Celia Terenzio, Assistant Attorney
General, Bureau Chief, West Palm Beach, and Steven R. Parrish, Assistant Attorney
General, West Palm Beach, Florida 
for Respondent