State v. Champe, 53811
| Decision Date | 14 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 53811,53811 |
| Citation | 373 So.2d 874 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Larry CHAMPE et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin and Jim Smith, Attys. Gen. and David K. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.
Elton H. Schwarz, Public Defender, Stuart, for appellees.
These consolidated appeals from the county court for Martin County present for our consideration the constitutional validity of Chapter 960, Florida Statutes (1977), the Florida Crimes Compensation Act. That statute was enacted by the 1977 legislature as a comprehensive scheme to fund and dispense money to needy victims of certain crimes. The trial judge below declared various provisions of Chapter 960 unconstitutional and, finding that the invalid provisions were inseparable from those remaining, he declared the entire Act invalid. In an effort to overturn the trial court's order, the state now invokes our jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution.
The factual background of these consolidated cases is uncomplicated. Larry Champe was arrested for petit larceny (shoplifting), entered a plea of nolo contendere, and was sentenced to sixty days in jail. At the time of sentencing, the state moved the court to impose $10 in additional court costs, as authorized by Section 960.20. 1 Jeffrey Wright pled nolo contendere to charges of reckless driving and driving without a license, was sentenced to pay a fine of $300, and was charged $12 court costs for each of the two charges. At the time of sentencing, the state moved to impose a five percent surcharge on Wright's fine in accordance with Section 960.25. 2
In a single order, the trial court denied the state's motions in both cases, ruling that "the method of determining the award . . . under Section 960.13 is a denial of equal protection and due process," 3 that "Section The state contends that: (i) the trial judge erred in treating our Lee decision as controlling authority; (ii) the revenue-producing surcharge and $10 additional court cost are a valid and reasonable exercise of the state's police power; (iii) Champe and Wright lack standing to contest the provisions which award benefits to claimants and direct reimbursement by perpetrators of injurious crimes (since neither committed a crime giving rise to a compensation award); and (iv) the trial court overlooked a severability clause in the Act which would allow an invalid provision to be voided without jeopardy to the entire statutory scheme. 5 Appellees argue here that neither the five percent surcharge in Section 960.25 nor the additional $10 cost in Section 960.20 is in fact a "fine" or a "cost," as those terms have been judicially defined, and that both constitute a tax on one class of private persons for the benefit of another class, such as that which we condemned in Lee. Appellees also argue, on equal protection grounds, that the statutory classifications created by Chapter 960 are irrational in that not all victims are eligible for benefits, and that they penalize persons convicted of non-violent, victimless crimes in order to remunerate losses caused solely by violent criminals. Appellees concede that they do not have standing to attack the constitutionality of Section 960.17.
960.17 violates Sections 9, 11 and 22 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Florida," 4 and that there is no rational way to distinguish Sections 960.20 and 960.25 of the Act from a provision in the Florida Insurance and Tort Reform Act which this Court held to be unconstitutional in State v. Lee, 356 So.2d 276 (Fla.1978).
We begin our analysis by eliminating from consideration issues which are either uncontested or not properly before us. First, since the offenses committed by appellees cannot be the basis for any victim compensation award under Section 960.13, and since neither Champe nor Wright is subject to the reimbursement requirements of Section 960.17, we decline to address the constitutionality of those provisions (except insofar as they depend on the severability issue later discussed). Persons not affected by the operation of a statute have no standing to challenge its validity. 6 Second, as there is no dispute by appellees as to the legitimacy of the public purpose upon which the Act is founded, 7 we need not dwell on the limits of the public purpose doctrine.
Our concerns, then, are whether Sections 960.20 and 960.25 constitute an invalid exercise of the police power, whether they deprive appellees of equal protection, whether 1. Exercise of police power. The trial judge grounded his ruling as to Sections 960.20 and 960.25 entirely on our decision in State v. Lee, 356 So.2d 276 (Fla.1978), where we struck down the so-called "Good Drivers' Incentive Fund" created by Section 42 of the Florida Insurance and Tort Reform Act. In Lee, we held
if one or both are constitutionally defective, they are severable from the balance of the Act, and whether these provisions impose unlawful taxes.
"that Section 42 is unconstitutional on the grounds that (i) it improperly uses the police power to take private property from one group of individuals solely for the benefit of another limited class of individuals . . . ." 8
The Crimes Compensation Act, however, is materially different from the Good Drivers' Incentive Fund in Lee.
The legislature may with impunity levy fines for various offenses and use that revenue in a manner designed to further a legitimate public purpose. We held in Lee, however, that the police power "cannot be invoked to distribute collected funds arbitrarily and discriminatorily to a special limited class of private individuals." 9 Legislation is not invalid simply because it benefits a limited group, but any disbursement of public funds which benefits a limited group of individuals must to some degree also serve the welfare of the general public. 10 The benefits of the Good Drivers' Incentive Fund in Lee could only be realized by a limited class of citizens, which group incidentally did not even include all "good" drivers. 11 The Fund did not operate to advance the welfare of the general public in any perceptible manner; it merely conferred a financial benefit on a certain arbitrarily limited class of individuals.
In contrast, an arbitrary limitation on the class of beneficiaries, fatal to the Good Drivers' Incentive Fund provision, is notably absent here. The Crimes Compensation Act potentially benefits any citizen of this state, including persons who at some previous time may have committed an offense and contributed to the pool of funds. In addition to the fact that any member of the public is potentially eligible for an actual disbursement of dollars from the compensation fund, the Act benefits the general public in two other respects. It requires offenders to bear the expense of compensating needy crime victims, fulfilling what the legislature has identified as "a matter of moral responsibility" for the state, and it shifts a financial burden that would otherwise fall on all Florida taxpayers by alleviating the need for assistance from publicly-funded medical care, unemployment compensation, and welfare programs. No such broad public benefits were discernible with respect to the Good Drivers' Incentive Fund.
The test we applied there in assessing the equal protection challenge was whether the statutory classification was based on some difference which is reasonably related to the purpose of the legislation. 13 The criteria used to distinguish good from bad drivers in Lee were found to be totally unrelated to the statutory objective of encouraging Appellees argue here that the classifications in Chapter 960 do not rest on any difference that is reasonably related to its purposes, since it imposes additional penalties and costs on persons (such as themselves) who have committed non-violent offenses, for the purpose of compensating certain victims of violent offenders. An analysis of the two independent classifications in the Act reveals, however, that each is reasonably related to one of the two objectives of the legislation.
the safe operation of motor vehicles. Some persons, for example, would be classified as "bad" drivers even though they were not operating a motor vehicle.
As to the classification of persons who are eligible for benefits, it cannot be said that the legislature acted irrationally in limiting the class to victims who can demonstrate actual need. Recognizing that the Constitution does not require the legislature to address the entirety of any problem at one time, 14 the need limitation is clearly consistent with standards embodied in a host of similar public benefit laws, and it is manifestly rational in relation to the objective of relieving demands on taxpayer-funded assistance programs.
As to the classification of persons subject to the penalty, we reject the notion that the financial penalties of Section 960.20 or Section 960.25 can only be applied to perpetrators of offenses involving violence. Laws which classify violent and non-violent offenders together for purposes related solely to the prevention of violent crimes have consistently been upheld against equal protection attacks. See United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 423 (5th Cir. 1973), Cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 94 S.Ct. 1490, 39 L.Ed.2d 575 (1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34, 36 n.3 (8th Cir.), Cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 454, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972); United States v. Thoresen, 428 F.2d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 1970). It is not irrational for the legislatures similarly to combine all lawbreakers for the purpose of remedying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coral Springs Street Systems v. City of Sunrise, No. 03-11497.
...for the severability of voided provisions is persuasive." Moreau v. Lewis, 648 So.2d 124, 127 (Fla.1995) (citing State v. Champe, 373 So.2d 874, 880 (Fla.1978)). This holding, and more broadly the doctrine of severability, weighs against the district court's finding that the challenged prov......
-
Wells v. State
...as vague subsections of section 944.47 under which she was not charged since she is unaffected by these subsections. State v. Champe, 373 So.2d 874 (Fla.1978). Furthermore, she has no standing to challenge section 944.47 as overbroad. Clark v. State, 395 So.2d 525 (Fla.1981). Her conduct wa......
-
Schiefer v. State
...on the criminal penalty which funds crime victim's compensation is a form of punishment for the offense and is a fine. State v. Champe, 373 So.2d 874, 880 (Fla.1978). Thus, any assessment of a surcharge for a victim's compensation fund must occur only after the trial court has found the ind......
-
State v. Cotton
...and undoubtedly in excess of any reasonable requirements for redressing the wrong.’ This standard was later clarified in State v. Champe, 373 So.2d 874, 879 (Fla.1979) wherein the [c]ourt stated,'... the [l]egislature is free to set civil fines and penalties in amounts which are not so exce......
-
A transatlantic perspective on the compensation of crime victims in the United States.
...derived by the defendant as a result of the crime, and the extent to which others suffered losses as a result of the crime." Id. (296) 373 So. 2d 874, 878 (Fla. 1978). The court struck down a portion of the legislation that permitted such a surcharge to be imposed on those required to pay "......