Williams v. State

Anthony WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 31, 1999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1999-03-31

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1999

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“his offense[s] occurred subsequent to the re-enactment of the chapter law into the Florida Statutes.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 743 So. 2d 585 - Rollinson v. State

Relies on State v. Boyd · 708 So. 2d 315 - Thompson v. State · 721 So. 2d 1245 - Scott v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-03-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *1006 Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Mallorye Cunningham, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rochelle L. Kirdy, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Anthony Williams argues that his sentence as a violent career criminal under Chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, is erroneous because the law violates the single subject requirement of Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution, as held in Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 717 So.2d 538 (Fla.1998). Mr. Williams does not have standing to make a constitutional challenge to his sentence on that ground because his offense occurred subsequent to the re-enactment of the chapter law into the Florida Statutes. See Scott v. State, 721 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

¶5AFFIRMED.

¶6WARNER, TAYLOR, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.