From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bush v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 14, 2002
823 So. 2d 833 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Summary

holding that the validly enacted statutes in effect prior to the enactment of chapter 99-188 control sentencing

Summary of this case from Miller v. State

Opinion

Case No. 2D02-2451

Opinion filed August 14, 2002.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge.


Terrell Bush appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm albeit for reasons other than those contained in the trial court's order.

Mr. Bush shot and wounded another man on October 24, 1998. He was charged with attempted first-degree murder. He ultimately entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated battery with a firearm. The trial court sentenced him to five years' imprisonment with a three-year minimum mandatory term of imprisonment pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1999).

Mr. Bush filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He argued that his sentence was illegal because it included the three-year minimum mandatory. He believes that this court's opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla.2d DCA 2002), rendered all of chapter 775 unconstitutional and specifically rendered section 775.087(2) unconstitutional. Taylor held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, was unconstitutionally enacted in violation of the single-subject rule.

The trial court denied Mr. Bush's motion on the ground that, during the 2002 legislative session, the legislature had reenacted the provisions affected by Taylor. The legislature expressly made the new statutes retroactive to a period including the date of Mr. Bush's offense. Thus, the trial court relied on the new statutes to render Mr. Bush's sentence legal. Mr. Bush maintains that the legislature had no power to enact such legislation on a retroactive basis.

We do not need to decide how recent legislation may affect our decision in Taylor or even whether Taylor rendered section 775.087(2) unconstitutional. Assuming Taylor applies in this case, that decision announced that the validly enacted statutes in effect at the time of the offense would control sentencing. The three-year minimum mandatory sentence for use of a firearm during the commission of aggravated battery existed prior to chapter 99-188. Mr. Bush's sentence is legal even if section 775.087(2) is the controlling statute.

Affirmed.

WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Bush v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 14, 2002
823 So. 2d 833 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

holding that the validly enacted statutes in effect prior to the enactment of chapter 99-188 control sentencing

Summary of this case from Miller v. State

holding that the validly enacted statutes in effect prior to the enactment of chapter 99-188 control sentencing

Summary of this case from Winkler v. State

holding that the validly enacted statutes in effect prior to the enactment of chapter 99-188 control sentencing

Summary of this case from Hall v. State

holding that the validly enacted statutes in effect prior to the enactment of chapter 99-188 control sentencing

Summary of this case from Lindsey v. State

holding that the validly enacted statutes in effect prior to the enactment of chapter 99-188 control sentencing

Summary of this case from McCarthy v. State

holding that the validly enacted statutes in effect prior to the enactment of chapter 99-188 control sentencing

Summary of this case from Cubby v. State
Case details for

Bush v. State

Case Details

Full title:TERRELL BUSH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Aug 14, 2002

Citations

823 So. 2d 833 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Winkler v. State

Winkler's claim is insufficient because he has not alleged that he was affected by this amendment and that he…

Miller v. State

Nevertheless, we affirm that portion of the trial court's order denying Miller's claim that the $100,000 fine…