¶1Ernest Lee Hardy challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for resentencing.
¶2In his motion, Hardy alleged that he pleaded to trafficking in more than 28 but less than 200 grams of cocaine. He further alleged that the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court pursuant to section 893.135(l)(b)(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), is illegal based on our opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002). A claim that a mandatory minimum sentence was illegally imposed is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion where the error is apparent on the face of the record. See Sims v. State, 838 So.2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Leath v. State, 805 So.2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
¶3Taylorheld that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, which provided for the imposition of mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses, is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution. In denying Hardy’s motion, the trial court found: “As of April 29, 2002, the Florida Legislature has cured the single subject rule violation by re-enacting the provisions originally contained in Chapter 99-188. The re-enactment was retroactive to July 1, 1999." However, in Green v. State, 839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), this court has since held that the reenactment of the sentencing provisions of chapter 99-188 cannot be applied retroactively because this would violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions.
¶4Hardy committed the offense of trafficking in cocaine in November 2000, which is within the Taylorwindow. See Green, 839 So.2d at 750 n. 1. Therefore, Hardy has presented a facially sufficient claim. See Green, 839 So.2d 748. We reverse the order of the trial court and remand with instructions to the trial court to resentence Hardy under the 1997 version of section *953893.135(l)(b)(l)(a). See id.We certify conflict with the Fourth and Fifth District cases with which we disagreed in Green.
¶5Reversed and remanded with instructions.