State v. Thompson
1999 WL 1244518, 750 So.2d 643 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative act violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution when its provisions address two or more dissimilar and unrelated subjects that do not have a natural or logical connection.
Facts:
- On November 16, 1995, Carol Leigh Thompson committed the offenses of robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- At the time of Thompson's offenses, a new law, chapter 95-182, was in effect.
- Sections 2 through 7 of chapter 95-182, known as the Gort Act, established a new sentencing category for 'violent career criminals' and amended other aspects of criminal sentencing.
- Sections 8 through 10 of the same law, chapter 95-182, created new civil causes of action for victims of domestic violence and imposed new duties on court clerks and law enforcement regarding domestic violence injunctions.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Carol Leigh Thompson in a state trial court with three felony offenses.
- The State filed a notice of intent to sentence Thompson as a 'Violent Career Criminal' under a statute amended by chapter 95-182.
- Thompson filed a motion in the trial court to declare chapter 95-182 unconstitutional for violating the single subject rule.
- The trial court denied Thompson's motion.
- Thompson entered a plea of nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the trial court's denial of her motion.
- The trial court sentenced Thompson as a violent career criminal to life imprisonment.
- Thompson (appellant) appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that chapter 95-182 violated the single subject rule.
- The State of Florida (petitioner) sought review in the Supreme Court of Florida due to a conflict with a decision from another district court.
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 chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, which contains provisions on both enhanced criminal sentencing for career criminals and civil remedies for domestic violence, violate the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, chapter 95-182 violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution. The law impermissibly embraces two distinct subjects: career criminal sentencing and domestic violence civil remedies. The provisions related to career criminals have no natural or logical connection to the provisions creating civil causes of action for domestic violence. The legislative history reveals that the domestic violence provisions originated in separate bills and were added to the career criminal bill late in the legislative session, a classic example of the 'log-rolling' the single subject rule is designed to prevent. Unlike other comprehensive acts upheld by the Court, the legislature did not identify a broad, unifying crisis that would logically connect these disparate topics.
Dissenting - Wells, J.
No, chapter 95-182 does not violate the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution. All portions of the legislation deal with remedies for acts which constitute crimes, and thus share the overall purpose of crime prevention. The legislature should be accorded wide latitude, and a statute should not be declared unconstitutional unless it is invalid beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that three of the four district courts that considered this issue found the statute constitutional, there is at least a reasonable doubt as to its invalidity, and the Court should therefore uphold it out of respect for the separation of powers.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict interpretation of Florida's single subject rule, preventing legislative 'log-rolling' where dissimilar topics are combined into one bill. The court clarified that a general theme like 'crime prevention' or 'the justice system' is too broad to serve as a sufficient logical connection between substantively different provisions. This ruling had a significant practical impact, invalidating the 'violent career criminal' sentencing statute and requiring the resentencing of all individuals sentenced under it during the window period before the law was constitutionally reenacted.
