From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parrish v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 8, 2001
789 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

Case No. 4D97-4409

Opinion filed August 8, 2001

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Robert B. Carney, Judge; L.T. Case No. 96-22277 CF 10 B.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Joseph R. Chloupek, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Gentry Denise Benjamin, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


ON REMAND


Vincent Parrish (Parrish) was convicted of armed robbery with a deadly weapon and resisting arrest without violence. The relevant offenses occurred on November 22, 1996. Parrish was sentenced to life imprisonment as a violent career criminal. On appeal, he challenged his violent career criminal sentence, arguing that chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida (1995), violated the single subject requirement of the Florida Constitution.

In Parrish v. State, 760 So.2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA), quashed by SC00-878, 2001 WL 617755 (Fla. June 7, 2001), we affirmed Parrish's convictions. On rehearing, we granted Parrish's motion to certify conflict with Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA), approved in part by 750 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1999), on the constitutional issue. The Florida Supreme Court held that chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, violated the single subject rule contained in article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. 750 So.2d at 649. Because Thompson clearly had standing to raise a single subject challenge, the Thompson court declined to address the window period for such challenges. Id. at n. 4.

In Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667, 671 (Fla. 2000), however, the court held that the window period for challenging the violent career criminal sentencing provisions created by chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, opened on October 1, 1995 and closed on May 24, 1997. Upon reconsideration of Parrish, as mandated by our supreme court, we remand for resentencing, because the date of the offenses in this case fall within the applicable window period. See Parrish, 2001 WL 617755.

GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Parrish v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Aug 8, 2001
789 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Parrish v. State

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT PARRISH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Aug 8, 2001

Citations

789 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)