Livingston v. State
| Decision Date | 16 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 69807,69807 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 411,510 So.2d 295 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 411 Michael LIVINGSTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit and Brynn Newton, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Belle B. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.
This is a petition to review Livingston v. State, 497 So.2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), concerning the retroactive application of section 27.3455(1), Florida Statutes (1985), which requires that all court costs and court fees shall be paid in full prior to granting a prisoner gain time. The district court certified the following question of great public importance:
Does the application of section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985) to crimes committed prior to the effective date of the statute violate the ex post facto provisions of the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Florida, or does the statute merely effect a procedural change as is permitted under State v. Jackson, 478 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1985)?
497 So.2d at 999. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
In Yost v. State, 489 So.2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), the district court certified the identical question which we rephrased as follows:
Does application of the penalty provisions of section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), to crimes committed prior to the effective date of the statute violate the ex post facto provisions of the Constitutions of the United States and Florida?
State v. Yost, 507 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Fla.1987). We held the statute unconstitutional in its application to crimes committed prior to its effective date and answered the rephrased question in the affirmative.
In accordance with our decision in Yost, we approve the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in the instant case.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Latham v. Florida Com'n on Ethics, 96-1224
... ... The question of the proper standard of proof to be applied in proceedings before the Commission is one of first impression in this state. Mr. Latham contends that the Commission erred in applying the preponderance of evidence standard. He asserts that a proceeding under the Code of ... ...
- Davis Family Day Care Home v. Dep't of Children & Families
-
Suber, In re
...593 So.2d 180 (Fla.1991); Waldrup v. Dugger, 562 So.2d 687 (Fla.1990); Patterson v. State, 513 So.2d 1263 (Fla.1987); Livingston v. State, 510 So.2d 295 (Fla.1987). The statutory amendment disadvantaged appellant, depriving him of a liberty interest. See Isom v. Circuit Court of the Tenth J......
-
Carter v. State, BS-7
...a defendant such as Carter who committed his crimes before the 1 July 1985 effective date of Section 27.3455. See also Livingston v. State, 510 So.2d 295 (Fla.1987) (the statute is unconstitutional in its application to crimes committed prior to its effective Section 27.3455 was amended by ......