Mills v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
FRANK H. MILLS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 2D03-490
Opinion filed August 29, 2003.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.
9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for
Lee County; Thomas S. Reese, Judge.
DAVIS, Judge.
Frank H. Mills appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal
sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion,
Mills alleged that his habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) sentences are illegal based
on this court's opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review
dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2002), which held chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida,
unconstitutional. In its response, the State conceded that Mills qualified as a HVFO
under the amendments to section 775.084, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), in chapter
99-188, but he did not qualify as a HVFO under the valid version of section 775.084 in
effect at the time of the offenses. Compare ch. 99-188, § 3, at 1043, Laws of Fla., with
§ 775.084(1)(b)(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1998). The State asserts that the HVFO
designations should be stricken from Mills' sentences. We agree. Therefore, we
reverse the trial court's order of denial and remand for correction of Mills' sentences.
On remand, if Mills does not qualify as a HVFO under the 1998 version of section
775.084, the trial court shall strike the HVFO designations and minimum mandatory
terms from Mills' sentences. We recognize conflict with the Third District in State v.
Franklin, 836 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); and as we did in Taylor, 818 So. 2d at
552, we certify the following questions of great public importance:
1. DOES CHAPTER 99-188, LAWS OF FLORIDA,
VIOLATE ARTICLE III, SECTION 6, FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROVIDES THAT EVERY LAW
SHALL EMBRACE BUT ONE SUBJECT AND MATTER
PROPERLY CONNECTED THEREWITH?
2. IF SO, WHAT IS THE WINDOW PERIOD FOR
CHALLENGING THE ACT BASED ON THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY?
Reversed and remanded; conflict and questions certified.
WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
