Shenfeld v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
44 So. 3d 96 (2010)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A statutory amendment that alters the procedural requirements for tolling a probationary period does not violate the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws when applied to a probationer who was sentenced before the amendment's enactment, provided the change is procedural and does not increase the punishment, alter the crime, or change the evidentiary standards for conviction.

Facts:

In September 2002, Jason Shenfeld was sentenced to five years of probation for a robbery committed earlier that year.
At the time of Shenfeld's sentencing, Florida law required both the filing of an affidavit of violation and the issuance of an arrest warrant to toll (i.e., pause) a probationary period.
On June 20, 2007, a new law became effective in Florida that amended the probation statute, allowing a probationary period to be tolled by an affidavit of violation followed by a warrant, a notice to appear, or a warrantless arrest.
On July 21, 2007, while still on probation and after the new law took effect, Shenfeld was arrested without a warrant for allegedly committing several new crimes, including first-degree murder and sexual battery.
On July 23, 2007, before Shenfeld's original probation term was scheduled to expire, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed based on the new alleged crimes.
No arrest warrant for the probation violation was issued before Shenfeld's original five-year probation period would have otherwise expired.

Procedural Posture:

Jason Shenfeld filed a motion in the trial court to dismiss the affidavits of violation of probation, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because his probation was never tolled under the statute in effect at his sentencing.
The trial court denied the motion, found Shenfeld in violation, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison.
Shenfeld, as appellant, appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, challenging both his sentence and the trial court's ruling on the ex post facto issue.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the sentence, directing a new sentence of five years, but affirmed the trial court's decision on the ex post facto issue, holding the statutory change was procedural and constitutional.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified that its decision on the ex post facto issue was in direct conflict with decisions from another appellate district, which prompted the Supreme Court of Florida to accept jurisdiction.

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 application of a statutory amendment, which expands the methods for tolling a probation period to include a warrantless arrest, to a defendant sentenced before the amendment's effective date violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws?

Opinions:

Majority - Canady, C.J.

No, the application of the statutory amendment does not violate the ex post facto prohibition. A legislative change that affects remedies and modes of procedure without altering substantive matters is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law. The 2007 amendment to section 948.06(1) was a procedural change that did not fall into any of the four categories of prohibited ex post facto laws established in Calder v. Bull. It did not criminalize a previously innocent act, aggravate a crime, increase punishment, or alter the rules of evidence necessary for conviction. Instead, it merely changed the 'modes of procedure' for tolling a probationary term. This is analogous to a permissible extension of a statute of limitations before the original time limit has expired, as it does not affect a defendant's substantive rights regarding the crime or punishment itself.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the critical distinction between substantive and procedural laws in ex post facto analysis. It clarifies that legislative modifications to court procedures, even if disadvantageous to a defendant, are constitutionally permissible as long as they do not affect the core elements of the crime, the available punishment, or the evidentiary requirements for conviction. The ruling provides legislatures with significant latitude to update procedural statutes governing probation or statutes of limitation without concern that such changes will be invalidated for individuals already within the criminal justice system. It establishes that the timing of the procedural change (i.e., before the probationary period expires) is a key factor in the analysis.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Shenfeld v. State (2010)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"