Salters v. State
2000 WL 581696, 758 So.2d 667 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative act that violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution remains invalid and challengeable until it is either cured by a subsequent act that separates and reenacts the dissimilar provisions, or until it is reenacted as part of the biennial codification of the Florida Statutes. Mere amendment of the defective law without addressing the single subject problem does not cure the defect or close the window period for challenges.
Facts:
- On April 27, 1997, Leo Salters removed eight bottles of Pepto-Bismol from a Winn Dixie store.
- An assistant manager, Esaak Mohamed, observed a bulge in Salters' jacket and followed him outside.
- When Mohamed spoke to Salters, Salters began to run.
- During the ensuing chase, Salters thrust a bicycle into Mohamed's path, causing Mohamed to be injured.
- A Winn Dixie customer apprehended Salters, who then admitted he had stolen from the store.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Leo Salters with strong-arm robbery in a Florida trial court.
- A jury found Salters guilty as charged.
- The trial court sentenced Salters as a violent career criminal to thirty-five years in prison with a thirty-year mandatory minimum term, pursuant to a statute amended by chapter 95-182.
- Salters filed a motion to correct the sentence, which the trial court denied.
- Salters (as appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Salters lacked standing to challenge the sentencing law because the window for such challenges closed on October 1, 1996, before his offense occurred.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a conflict with a decision from the Second District Court of Appeal, bringing the case before the Supreme Court of Florida for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the enactment of a subsequent law that merely amends portions of an earlier law, which violates the single subject rule, cure the constitutional defect and close the window period for challenging sentences imposed under the original unconstitutional law?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The enactment of a subsequent law that merely amends portions of an unconstitutional statute does not cure a single subject rule violation. A law violating the single subject rule is invalid until 'cured,' which generally occurs through the biennial adoption of the Florida Statutes. An exception exists, as established in Martinez v. Scanlan, where the legislature explicitly separates the dissimilar subjects of the unconstitutional law and reenacts them into distinct bills. Here, chapter 96-388 only amended various provisions of the unconstitutional chapter 95-182 and did not separate the multiple, unrelated subjects. Therefore, the defect was not cured, and the window for challenging sentences under chapter 95-182 remained open until the next biennial codification on May 24, 1997. Because Salters' offense occurred on April 27, 1997, it fell within this window period, granting him standing to challenge his sentence.
Dissenting - Wells, J.
No answer provided to the issue. The dissent does not reach the window period issue because it maintains the position articulated in the dissent of State v. Thompson, which argued that the underlying law, chapter 95-182, did not violate the single subject rule in the first place. Because the law is viewed as constitutional, the question of when a challenge window closes is moot.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the specific methods for curing a law that violates the Florida Constitution's single subject rule, establishing that a simple amendment is insufficient. The ruling requires a deliberate legislative act to separate the unrelated subjects or a formal biennial codification to remedy the constitutional flaw. This holding protects defendants from sentences imposed under unconstitutionally passed laws by defining a broader time frame (the 'window period') in which such challenges can be made. It sets a precedent that prevents legislatures from implicitly or accidentally 'curing' defective laws, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the legislative process.
