Title: Ronald Watson v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC00-404
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: July 13, 2000

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-404
____________
RONALD WATSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[July 13, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Watson v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D217 (Fla. 4th DCA
Jan. 19, 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.  We have jurisdiction.  See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
The State of Florida alleged that on October 14, 1996, Ronald Watson
-2-
committed a burglary of a dwelling.  Watson was convicted as charged and
sentenced as a violent career criminal pursuant to section 775.084(1)(c), Florida
Statutes (1995). 
Watson appealed to the Fourth District arguing 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, citing our recent decision in State v.
Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999), agreed that chapter 95-182 did in fact
violate the single subject rule requirement contained in Florida’s constitution. See
Watson, 25 Fla. L. Weekly at D217.   Nevertheless, the Fourth District determined
that Watson lacked standing to challenge the validity of chapter 95-182 because the
date of the commission of the crime was outside the window period within which
such a 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 Watson
court certified conflict with 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 Watson, 25 Fla. L. Weekly at D217. 
1  Even though Watson failed to raise a single subject rule challenge in the trial court, we find that
such challenge may be properly addressed for the first time on appeal.  Cf. Heggs v. State, 25 Fla. L.
Weekly S137, S138, S140 n.4 (Fla. Feb. 14, 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). 
-3-
Watson seeks review.
Since the issuance of the Fourth District’s decision below, this Court has
resolved the certified conflict.  In Salters v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S 365 (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, we find that because Ronald Watson committed the offense charged on
October 14, 1996, he does in fact have standing to raise a single subject rule
challenge to chapter 95-182.1  
Accordingly, we quash the decision below  as it relates to the issue of
standing.  Further, we reverse Watson’s violent career criminal sentence and
remand for resentencing in accordance with the valid laws in effect on October 14,
1996, the date of the offense.  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 offense).
-4-
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 of Decisions
Fourth District - Case No. 4D97-2868
(Broward County)
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Paul E. Petillo, Assistant Public
Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Celia Terenzio, Assistant Attorney
General, Bureau Chief, West Palm Beach, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida,
for Respondent