author: PER CURIAM. CANTERO, J.,

text:
    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Appellant, v. Robert P. CRITCHFIELD, Appellee.
    No. SC02-386.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 13, 2003.
    Rehearing Denied June 11, 2003.

      Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Charlie McCoy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellant.
    Michael J. Snure of Kirkconnell, Lindsey, Snure and Yates, P.A., Winter Park, FL, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We have on appeal a decision of a district court of appeal declaring invalid a state statute. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

The facts as stated by the Fifth District Court of Appeal are:

The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of Robert Critchfield. The trial court granted summary judgment for Critch-field, and held Chapter 98-223, Laws of Florida, violates the single subject rule in Article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. Based on this holding, Critchfield was found not legally barred from applying for a hardship driver’s license despite four convictions for DUI.
Critchfield received his fourth DUI conviction in 1987. His driver’s license was permanently revoked. At the time of sentencing, Critchfield was informed that he would be eligible for a hardship license after five years.
Critchfield applied in 1999 but was told he was no longer eligible due to a change in the law. That change was made by section 8 of Chapter 98-223, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1998 which provided:
The department shall forthwith revoke the license or driving privilege of any person upon receiving a record of such person’s conviction of any of the following offenses:
(1) (a) ... [A] fourth violation of s. 316.19S or former s. 316.1931. For such cases, the revocation of the driv er’s license or driving •privilege shall be permanent. (Emphasis original).
On April 4, 2000, Critchfield brought a two-count complaint for declaratory relief. Count two alleged Chapter 98-223 is unconstitutional as it encompassed more than one subject in violation of the single subject requirement of the Florida Constitution. The trial court granted Critchfield’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of the single subject rule....
Chapter 98-223 contains 15 sections of which 13 are substantive.[n] Section 1 creates section 832.09, Florida Statutes to provide for suspension of a driver’s license for failure to appear before the court in connection with prosecution for passing a worthless check. Section 2 creates section 832.10, Florida Statutes to provide that a payee on a worthless check may place the check for collection by a private debt collector prior to presenting the check to the state attorney for prosecution and that the payee may recover reasonable collection fees. Section 3 creates section 322.251, Florida Statutes to provide for notice to a licensee whose driving privilege is suspended pursuant to section 832.09. Section 4 adds a subsection to section 322.142, Florida Statutes to provide for the DHSMV to sell copies of photographs or digital imaged driver’s licenses under certain circumstances. Section 6 amends section 318.18(3), Florida Statutes to increase the fines for speeding. Section 7 amends section 320.07(3), Florida Statutes which deals with expiration of license plates. Section 8 amends section 322.26, Florida Statutes which deals with mandatory revocation of driver’s licenses. Section 9 amends section 322.271, Florida Statutes, which deals with petitions for reinstatement of driving privileges. Section 10 deals with amendments to section 322.28, Florida Statutes, concerning the period of suspensions and revocations of driver’s licenses. Section 11 creates section 322.28, Florida Statutes relating to the commencement of the period of suspension or revocation of driver’s licenses for incarcerated offenders while section 12 amends section 322.34, Florida Statutes dealing with driving while license suspended, revoked, canceled or disqualified. Section 13 creates section 322.341, Florida Statutes which makes it a third degree felony to drive while a license is permanently revoked. Finally, section 14 amends section 627.733, Florida Statutes which deals with suspension of a motor vehicle registration for lack of required security.
[n.] Section 5 appropriates $35,000; section 15 provides an effective date.

Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Critchfield, 805 So.2d 1034, 1035-36 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

The district court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Critchfield. The district court found that the subject matter in chapter 98-223, Laws of Florida, involved “driver’s licenses, vehicle registrations and operation of motor vehicles.” Id. at 1038. The district court held, however, that “[sjection 2 [of chapter 98-223, Laws of Florida] lacks a logical or natural connection to driver’s licenses, registrations or operation of motor vehicles which are the subject matter of Chapter 98-223.” Id. Because section 2 lacked a logical or natural connection to the subject matter of chapter 98-223, the district court affirmed the trial court’s judgment invalidating chapter 98-223 based upon a violation of the constitutional single subject requirement.

Article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that “[ejvery law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title.” This portion of the Florida Constitution is referred to as “the single subject rule.” In Martinez v. Scanlan, 582 So.2d 1167 (Fla.1991), this Court stated:

The purpose of this constitutional prohibition against a plurality of subjects in a single legislative act is to prevent “logrolling” where a single enactment becomes a cloak for dissimilar legislation having no necessary or appropriate connection with the subject matter. The act may be as broad as the legislature chooses provided the matters included in the act have a natural or logical connection.

Id. at 1172 (citation omitted).

We agree with the district court and circuit court below that chapter 98-223 violates the single subject rule. Section 2 of the law, which involves assigning bad check debt to a private debt collector, has no natural or logical connection to the law’s subject matter, which is driver’s licenses, operation of motor vehicles, and vehicle registrations. The subject matter of chapter 98-223 was defined in part by the substantial revisions to House Bill 3275, which created chapter 98-223. When House Bill 3275 was sent to the Senate for consideration, the substantive provisions of the bill related to worthless checks and drivers’ licenses. See Fla. HB 3275 (1998) (Second Engrossed). The Senate returned the bill to the House after adopting an amendment, which added the language that eventually became sections 6 through 14 of chapter 98-223. See Fla. S. Jour. 1163-66 (Reg.Sess.1998). Sections 6 through 14 involve vehicle registrations, drivers’ licenses, and civil penalties for speeding fines. Sections 6 through 14 do not relate to worthless checks, and therefore, the overall focus of the bill was shifted from worthless checks to drivers’ licenses, vehicle registrations, and the operation of motor vehicles. The House approved the amended bill as sent to it by the Senate on April 30, 1998, one day before the close of the regular legislative session. See Fla. H.R. Jour. 1937-1940 (Reg.Sess. 1998).

The addition of sections 6 through 14 changed the subject of the bill, as stated by the district court below, to “driver’s licenses, vehicle registrations and operation of motor vehicles.” Critchfield, 805 So.2d at 1038. Section 2 of chapter 98-223 involves assigning the collection of bad check debt to a private debt collector and has no natural or logical connection to driver’s licenses, operation of motor vehicles, or vehicle registrations. Thus, we conclude that chapter 98-223 violates the single subject rule.

This Court’s precedent supports our conclusion. In State v. Thompson, 750 So.2d 643, 644 (Fla.1999), this Court held that chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, violated the single subject rule because the law addressed two different subjects: domestic violence and career criminals. This Court analyzed the legislative history of the Senate bill which enacted the law, noting that the Legislature amended the bill several times, changed its title, and passed it near the end of the regular legislative session. See id. at 648. This Court stated that single subject rule problems “are most likely to occur” under these circumstances. Id. (quoting Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). Similar to the legislative history of chapter 95-182, the legislative history of chapter 98-223 indicates that the Legislature unconstitutionally combined two subjects into one law.

This Court’s decision in State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1993), also supports our conclusion that chapter 98-223 violates the single subject rule. In Johnson, this Court held that a chapter law violated the single subject rule by combining the subject of habitual offenders with the subject of licensing private investigators. See id. Similarly, chapter 98-223 improperly combines the subject of assigning the collection of bad check debt to a private debt collector with the subject of driving, motor vehicles, and vehicle registration.

The argument of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) that section 2 correlates directly to sections 1 and 3 of chapter 98-223 does not consider section 2’s complete lack of correlation to sections 6 through 14. Also unavailing is DHSMV’s cite to Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So.2d 693, 699 (Fla.1969). In Doran, this Court rejected a single subject challenge to a statute that provided criminal penalties and injunctive relief as enforcement provisions to an open meetings requirement. However, there is clearly a natural or logical connection between establishing a requirement and then providing measures to enforce that requirement. There is no similar connection between assigning bad check debt to a private collector and drivers’ licenses, vehicle registrations, and motor vehicle operation.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision below and hold that chapter 98-223 violates article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., and SHAW, Senior Justice, concur.

CANTERO, J., dissents with an opinion, in which WELLS, J., concurs.

CANTERO, J.,

dissenting.

I disagree that chapter 98-223, Laws of Florida, violates the single subject requirement of article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. I would adopt the Fourth District’s reasoning in Sawyer v. State, 819 So.2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and find that chapter 98-228 is constitutional.

Article III, section 6, commonly known as the single subject rule, provides that “[ejvery law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title.” As the majority acknowledges, the purpose of this requirement “is to prevent ‘logrolling’ where a single enactment becomes a cloak for dissimilar legislation having no necessary or appropriate connection with the subject matter.” Martinez v. Scanlan, 582 So.2d 1167, 1172 (Fla.1991).

We have previously warned that doubts about whether a law meets the single subject requirement should be resolved in favor of a statute’s validity. See State v. McDonald, 357 So.2d 405, 407 (Fla.1978). In fact, in interpreting the identical provision of the 1885 Constitution, we noted that the presumption is in favor of constitutionality, and that to overcome that presumption, the invalidity must appear beyond a reasonable doubt. See State ex rel. Flink v. Canova, 94 So.2d 181, 184-85 (Fla.1957). In furtherance of that policy, we have held that the act “may be as broad as the legislature chooses provided the matters included in the act have a natural or logical connection,” Martinez, 582 So.2d at 1172, and that the single subject requirement is satisfied “if a ‘reasonable explanation exists as to why the legislature chose to join the two subjects within the same legislative act.’ ” Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655, 657 (Fla.2000) (quoting State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1993)).

A full understanding of the single subject requirement for legislative enactments requires examination of the same requirement in article XI, section 3, for initiative petitions. Regarding legislative enactments, we have “taken a broad view.” Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984, 988 (Fla.1984). In Fine, we explained that “the language ‘shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith’ in article III, section 6, regarding statutory change by the legislature is broader than the language ‘shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith,’ in article XI, section 3, regarding constitutional change by initiative.” Id. at 988-89. Likewise, “we should take a broader view of the legislative provision because in that process there was an opportunity for legislative debate and public hearing which was not available under the initiative scheme for constitutional revision.” Smith v. Dept. of Ins., 507 So.2d 1080, 1085 (Fla.1987).

Applying these guidelines, as well as the principle that doubts should be resolved in favor of a statute’s validity, see McDonald, 357 So.2d at 407, I would conclude that chapter 98-223 does not violate the single subject rule for the following reasons.

Chapter 98-223 contains thirteen substantive sections. Twelve sections concern drivers’ licenses. The suspect section, which became section 832.10(1), Florida Statutes, is section 2, entitled, “Violations Involving Checks and Drafts.” It involves assigning bad checks to a private debt collector. Although at first glance it may appear to address a subject different from drivers’ licenses, a reasonable explanation exists for joining it with the rest of the act. First, the act adds or amends statutory-language in both chapter 882, Florida Statutes, entitled “Violations Involving Checks and Drafts,” and chapter 822, Florida Statutes, entitled “Driver’s Licenses.” In its title, chapter 98-223 explains that one of its purposes is to provide for the suspension of drivers’ licenses for those who pass worthless checks. Chapters 832 and 322 are related in that section 832.09 provides for suspension of drivers’ licenses pursuant to section 322.251. Second, section 2 is clearly related to sections 1 and 3. Section 1 provides for the suspension of a driver’s license after a warrant or capias is issued for passing a worthless check, while section 2 allows the recipient of a bad check to attempt to collect the debt before filing a criminal complaint (which would result in a license suspension). Section 3 provides details about notice and other matters involving the suspension of drivers’ licenses for passing worthless checks.

Thus, a natural or logical connection exists between section 2 and the rest of the act. There can be no legitimate fear that section 2 was enacted through logrolling, the prevention of which is the purpose of the single subject requirement. I would conclude that chapter 98-223 does not violate that requirement.

WELLS, J., concurs.

      . Section 2 states:
      Section 2. Section 832.10, Florida Statutes, is created to read:

        832.10 Alternative to bad check diversion program; fees for collection.—

        (1) Prior to presenting a complaint about a dishonored check to a state attorney, a

        payee on such bad check may place or assign the debt evidenced by the bad check for collection pursuant to this section by a private debt collector registered under part VI, chapter 559, Florida Statutes.

        (2) Upon such placement or assignment the payee shall be entitled to add a collection fee to offset the cost of collection. This collection fee is in addition to the bad check service charges authorized by law. The collection fee payable to the debt collector shall be a reasonable fee in accord with industry standards, based upon the total amount collected.

        (3) Unless extended by the payee, the debt collector shall have 90 days from the date of placement or assignment of the debt for collection within which to collect the amount of the bad check, applicable bad debt charges, and the collector’s collection fee. Upon the expiration of such 90 day period and any extensions thereof, the payee then may present a complaint to the appropriate state attorney. The debt collector may continue to try to collect the debt, provided such collection effort does not impede the prosecution or other disposition of the case by the state attorney.

        (4) The debt collector may not compromise the amount to be collected without the express consent of the payee of the check. The debt collector shall remit to the payee the amount collected less the collector’s fee percentage on the total amount collected.

        (5) The use of such debt collector shall not affect the authority of the state attorney to prosecute any person for any violation of s. 832.04, s. 832.041, s. 832.05, or s. 832.06. The use of this section by a payee on a bad check shall not affect the rights of the payee, other than as set forth in this section, to present a complaint to the appropriate state attorney.

      Ch. 98-223, § 2, at 2101-02, Laws of Fla. (emphasis indicates text added to the Florida Statutes).

      . The district court also found that chapter 98-223 had not been reenacted and therefore was still subject to single subject challenge. See id.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Chadwick D. BANKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Chadwick D. Banks, Petitioner, v. James V. Crosby, Jr., Respondent.
    Nos. SC01-1153, SC02-63.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 20, 2003.

      Gary L. Printy of the Law Office of Gary L. Printy, Tallahassee, FL, for Appellant/Petitioner.
    Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General and Curtis M. French, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Ap-pellee/Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Chadwick D. Banks, a prisoner under a sentence of death, appeals an order of the trial court denying his motion for postcon-viction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Additionally, he files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, §§ 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the decision of the trial court and deny habeas corpus relief.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Chadwick D. Banks (Banks) pled no contest to two counts of first-degree murder for the shooting deaths of his wife Cassandra Banks and his stepdaughter Melody Cooper. Banks also pled no contest to sexual battery on a child under the age of twelve for acts committed against Melody Cooper. The jury recommended death by a vote of nine to three, and the trial court sentenced Banks to death. This Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling upon direct appeal. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 23, 1998.

On June 10, 1999, Banks filed a rule 3.850 motion alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to the trial counsel’s failure to retain a mental-health expert to evaluate possible statutory and nonstatutory mitigating evidence which was available for presentation to the sentencing jury and judge. The witnesses who testified at the evidentiary hearing included: Steve Seliger (Seliger) and Armando Garcia (Garcia), trial counsel for Banks; and Dr. David Partyka and Dr. James Larson, expert witnesses retained by Banks’ postconviction counsel, fhe trial court found no merit to Banks’ claims. Banks appeals the trial court’s decision and also petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus.

DISCUSSION

I. 3.850 APPEAL

Banks first claims that the trial court erred in failing to grant a new penalty phase after an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Banks argues that had trial counsel fully investigated and prepared for the penalty phase, they would have found a wealth of mitigation that would have affected the jury’s decision. Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), when evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims, this Court is required to decide two issues: (1) whether counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) whether such deficiency prejudiced the defendant. To determine whether counsel was deficient, this Court looks not only at counsel’s failure to investigate and present possible mitigating evidence but also at counsel’s reasons for doing so. See Rose v. State, 675 So.2d 567, 571 (Fla.1996). Moreover, the defendant has the burden to show that counsel’s ineffectiveness actually “deprived the defendant of a rehable penalty phase proceeding.” Rutherford v. State, 727 So.2d 216, 223 (Fla.1998).

Specifically, Banks argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to seek the assistance of a mental health expert in order to explain the potential mitigating evidence concerning beatings Banks received from his father from the age of three to the age of around eleven or twelve and Banks’ abuse of alcohol. Banks contends that counsel’s decision not to present this type of evidence was not a strategic decision because counsel did not seek the assistance of a mental health expert before making the decision. At the evidentiary hearing in the trial court, Banks presented the testimony of Dr. Larson who, in essence, opined that Banks’ abuse of alcohol was his method of dealing with the physical abuse he suffered as a child. Dr. Larson indicated that this type of testimony could have been presented as mitigating evidence. However, on cross-examination Dr. Larson conceded that this kind of evidence could backfire and leave the jury with the impression that the defendant was a dangerous individual. The defendant also offered the testimony of Dr. Partyka, who testified that he believed alcohol played a major role in the crimes. Dr. Partyka indicated that the consumption of alcohol affected Banks’ judgment and inhibitions on the night of the murders to the extent that it released his anger concerning how he had been treated as a child. However, Dr. Partyka also admitted that the degree of intoxication was based on information he obtained from Banks and that he was not familiar with the testimony of the witnesses who said Banks did not exhibit any signs of intoxication on the night of the murders.

In prior cases, we have found ineffective assistance of counsel where no attempt was made to investigate mitigation even though substantial mitigating, evidence could have been presented. See Rose, 675 So.2d at 572; Hildwin v. Dugger, 654 So.2d 107, 109-10 (Fla.1995) (ordering a new penalty phase where counsel’s failure to adequately investigate and uncover mitigation evidence, including prior psychiatric hospitalizations, resulted in an unreliable penalty phase). However, we have also found that the trial court properly denied relief where counsel did conduct a sufficient investigation of mental health mitigation before trial, but made a strategic decision not to present such evidence. For example, in Rose v. State, 617 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla.1993), where a psychologist determined the defendant had an antisocial personality disorder, but not an organic brain disorder, we denied an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to investigate further.

Although Banks claims that Seliger failed to consult mental health experts, the record clearly shows that counsel consulted mental health experts and decided on a strategy after considering his options. When Seliger was appointed to the case, Dr. McClaren, a mental health professional, had already been assigned to the case. In preparation for trial, Seliger consulted Dr. McClaren, who interviewed Banks within twenty-four hours of the murders. Seliger opted not to call Dr. McClaren at trial because he felt that the doctor had rendered an unfavorable report. Furthermore, the evidence in the record indicates that Seliger conducted an extensive investigation in this case. Seliger acquired Banks’ school records, military records, employment records, and medical records. Additionally, Seliger interviewed Banks’ family members and other individuals who knew Banks.

Seliger also testified that he reviewed the records of Dr. Woodward and was aware of Banks’ childhood physical abuse. Seliger reviewed Dr. McClaren’s report which discussed Banks’ possible childhood physical abuse. 'Seliger also discussed Banks’ child abuse with his parents. Seli-ger testified that based upon his prior experience in Gadsden County, the inability to make a connection between Banks’ abuse, which lasted for a finite period of time during his childhood, and the murders, and the family’s good reputation in the community, he felt that the child abuse strategy would be ineffectual. Banks has failed to demonstrate deficient conduct in failing to present the child abuse evidence.

At the evidentiary hearing, counsel testified that he did not remember Banks having a documented history of alcoholism. Further, Seliger felt that introducing evidence of Banks’ past criminal acts, which involved the consumption of alcohol, would be inconsistent with his theory of the case. Seliger indicated that had he attempted to establish that Banks was only violent when consuming alcohol, it is likely that he would have opened the door for the State to present evidence highlighting Banks’ prior criminal history.

Banks’ argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to consult a mental health expert regarding the role that alcohol played in the murders is based primarily upon the expert opinions of Dr. Partyka and Dr. Larson. With regard to expert opinion testimony, this Court has stated: “Opinion testimony gains its greatest force to the degree it is supported by the facts at hand, and its weight diminishes to the degree such support is lacking.” Walls v. State, 641 So.2d 381, 390-91 (Fla.1994). In the instant case, little evidence existed to support Banks’ claim that he was intoxicated at the time of the murders. During the penalty phase, trial counsel introduced evidence concerning Banks’ consumption of alcohol near the time of the murders. Annie Pearl and Leonard Collins testified that they had served Banks between five and seven sixteen-ounce malt liquor beers. While evidence did show that Banks had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol on the night of the murder, the evidence did not support a finding of intoxication at the time of the murders. On direct appeal, this Court stated:

While voluntary intoxication or drug use might be a mitigator, whether it actually is depends upon the particular facts of a case. [Johnson v. State, 608 So.2d 4, 13 (Fla.1992).] We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that appellant was under the influence of alcohol. Testimony revealed that in the hours preceding the murders, appellant was present at a local bar, where he was served between five and seven sixteen-ounce servings of malt liquor over a period of approximately five or six hours. Notwithstanding his alcohol consumption, appellant won several pool games throughout the evening and displayed no visible signs of drunkenness such as slurred speech or stumbling. Also, the circumstances of the crimes themselves demonstrate that they were committed in a purposeful manner. Appellant drove to Cassandra Banks’ trailer, entered without turning on the lights, shot Ms. Banks execution-style while she lay sleeping, and then proceeded to Melody Cooper’s bedroom.
Thus, although he had ingested a considerable quantity of alcohol before the murders, appellant’s actions both before and during the murders and the length of time over which the alcohol was consumed support the trial court’s finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that appellant was under the influence of alcohol when he assaulted and killed Melody Cooper. The trial court found that even if this nonstatuto-ry mitigator had been established, it would be afforded only minimal weight. Thus, any possible error in finding that this mitigator was not established was harmless. See also Preston v. State, 607 So.2d 404, 412 (Fla.1992) (upholding trial court’s finding that defendant’s drug and alcohol use did not even rise to the level of nonstatutory mitigating circumstance).

Banks, 700 So.2d at 368.

Banks has failed to demonstrate that counsel’s strategy for the presentation of the penalty phase evidence was deficient. Therefore, he is not entitled to relief on this issue.

Finally, Banks argues that Seliger was ineffective for allowing Garcia to present the closing argument at the penalty phase. Banks argues that Garcia’s closing argument shows that he lacked the necessary experience and expertise to handle a capital case. Although Banks failed to raise this issue in his motion for postcon-viction relief and the trial court did not rule on this issue, the trial court allowed Seliger to address the issue during his testimony. Seliger stated that he opted to allow Garcia to make the closing argument because he was “more emotional” than Sel-iger. Garcia’s closing argument, in accordance with Seliger’s strategy, repeatedly emphasized that Banks’ life was “worth saving.” Garcia emphasized Banks’ school background, his military service, and his job record. Garcia also pointed out the role that alcohol played in the murder. Although Garcia did not restate the jury instructions during closing argument, he did mention the factors in the case that were aggravating and those that were mitigating. The jury was given instructions which required them to weigh the case’s aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances.

Banks has failed to demonstrate that Garcia’s closing argument was deficient. Therefore, we deny relief on this issue.

II. HABEAS PETITION

Banks argues that Florida’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional because the jury was not required to make specific factual findings as to aggravation and mitigation. Banks further argues that Florida’s statute is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 811 (1999), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Applying these decisions to the instant ease, Banks argues that it is clear that the aggravators under the Florida death penalty sentencing scheme are arguably elements of the offense which must be charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury during the guilt phase, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Banks’ Apprendi claim must be considered in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), which made Apprendi applicable to capital cases. See Bottoson v. Moore, 833 So.2d 693 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 662, 154 L.Ed.2d 564 (2002). In Bottoson, we rejected the type of constitutional challenge Banks presents in this case. We again reject this claim. Additionally, it should be noted that the trial court found as aggravating factors that Banks had been previously convicted of a violent felony and that the murder was committed during the course of a felony. Both factors involve circumstances that were submitted to the jury and found to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Habeas relief based on Ap-prendi/Ring is hereby denied.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of postconviction relief and deny Banks’ petition for writ of habeas corpus.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ„ and SHAW and HARDING, Senior Justices, concur.

ANSTEAD, C.J., concurs in result only.

      . A more detailed description of the facts of this case is contained in the direct appeal opinion. See Banks v. State, 700 So.2d 363 (Fla.1997).


text:
    Austin V. TASSE, Petitioner, v. G.W. SIMPSON, et al., Respondents.
    No. SC02-1527.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 20, 2003.

      Austin V. Tasse, pro se, Fort Lauder-dale, FL, for Petitioner.
    G.W. Simpson, III, pro se, New Smyrna Beach, FL, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

On June 24, 2002, petitioner Austin V. Tasse submitted a petition for writ of mandamus. The petition contained scandalous and obscene language. Tasse insulted specific attorneys and judges, The Florida Bar, the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and the legal system as a whole. While this Court will not reprint the entire petition, printed below is a sample taken from an attachment to Tasse’s petition:

[The] Nazi judge gave [petitioner] his LAW 101 bullsh*t cliche “fool for a client” ad nauseam to perpetuate the DIRTY ATTY GAME. [Petitioner] told him [he did] not need atty, since [he] had defeated 30 scumbags [and had] studied law in San Quentin Prison in 69 when framed by LA and BURBANK PIGS.... [Petitioner] vowed NO NAZI JUDGE, D.A., COP, ATTY, NOBODY WOULD EVER WALK ON [him] AGAIN. Then [petitioner] met the dirty motherf***er 4 judges of [location omitted], A HICK AREA OF HILLBILLIES .... [Petitioner] sent out thousands of letters on this dishonorable motherf***er Nazi, so [the trial judge] recused [himself] and appointed [name omitted] who set non-jury trial.... [Then that judge recused himself and] then a 3rd NAZI JUDGE [name omitted] set a 3rd trial date aug. 8, 01. [Petitioner] told this stupid moth-erf***er he could not hold a MOCK TRIAL, case over.... [Petitioner] told this dishonorable prick who had bought his license for law at Walgreens that [he] would never enter his FASCIST COURT.... [The judge] held the farce MOCK TRIAL ... This IMBECILE JUDGE, WHOSE AGE AND I.Q. TOGETHER WOULDN’T TOTAL 100 _[is like a]ll courts [which] are corrupt, see case so and so, as they quote from some irrelevant bullsh*t.... Only LOSER attys become judges, could not make the BILLABLE HOURS.... They kiss the a** of the party, get on ballot, the public does not know 1 a**hole atty from the another. Voted in, they kiss the a** of the Gov for promotions.... [T]he DCA and ALL HIGH COURTS RUBBER STAMP DENIED as in [petitioner’s] cases. The DCA denied appeals with IRREFUTABLY PROVEN PE JURY [sic].... The FLORIDA BAR, set up to con the public they police their own, gave [the defendant’s attorney] his license to he, would do nothing. Judicial Qualifications, set up by has been judges to con the public they police their own, would do nothing on the NAZIS. State Atty General [name omitted] did nothing on [petitioner’s] criminal complaint.... Federal Judge [name omitted] .... a simple minded prick said “I CANNOT WADE THROUGH 50 PAGES OF WRIT”.... [T]his lazy prick did not do his job [and the] female attys on [their] period could not do job-[Then petitioner] filed a case in [location omitted], Nazi judge [name omitted], THE LOUSE, DENIED case saying “frivolous, SCANDALOUS”.... Yes it was a scandal as it was in L.A. where I brought down 15 pigs.

On November 4, 2002, this Court denied the petition and ordered Tasse to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his abusive language. On November 13, 2002, Tasse responded to the Court’s order. Rather than providing some reason why this Court should not issue its proposed sanction, Tasse flaunts his disregard for this Court:

The $upine [sic] court tells FLA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS IT IS OK THAT THEIR NAZI JUDGES CAN DENY A JURY TRIAL. The FLA $UPINE [sic] COURT WOULD NOT SEE THAT JU$TICE [sic] IS DOEN [sic] IN MY CASE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE SCANDAL WOULD BE ENORMOUS. $UPINE [sic] COURT IS WORTHLESS and only gives the PRETENSE OF JUSTICE, the same as CUBA, PERU, CHINA, IRAN and IRAQ.
The $UPINE [sic] COURT in their Order said I used profanity which they quoted but they would not spell the words A**, SH*T, because their mama told them not to use those bad words. The $UPINE [sic] COURT is very juvenile .... Being a former low budget movie producer, I will soon tell the world.

This Court cannot allow its judicial processes to be misused by Tasse to malign and insult those persons and institutions which have been unfortunate enough to come in contact with Tasse. Tasse has litigated the matters he raised in his petition repeatedly, and this is not the first time Tasse has filed scandalous pleadings in this Court. This Court has the authority and the duty to prevent the misuse and abuse of the judicial system. It is clear that Tasse is unable to maintain the bare minimum standard of decorum and respect for the judicial system that all litigants must have when filing court pleadings and seeking court rulings. Since Tasse cannot meet that standard and cannot conduct himself with that basic level of decency, we are forced to forbid Tasse from filing any farther pro se pleadings in this Court.

This Court has previously refused to allow litigants to repeatedly abuse the judicial system. This Court has sanctioned a dozen or so abusive litigants. This Court has not previously imposed sanctions upon a litigant for abuse which included profanity; it has sanctioned a litigant for malicious litigation. See Martin v. State, 747 So.2d 386 (Fla.2000) (.Martin I). In Martin I, the litigant insulted and maligned the reputation of numerous judges and other court personnel. In addition, he engaged in ethnic and religious disparagement. Eventually, this Court prohibited Martin from filing any further pro se litigation. See Martin v. State, 833 So.2d 756 (Fla.2002) (Martin II). Before imposing such a sanction in Martin II, however, we allowed Martin the opportunity to argue why he should not be sanctioned. Like Tasse, Martin responded with additional abuse. We find a passage from that decision relevant today:

This Court ordered Martin to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for abusing the judicial system by filing pleadings that failed to properly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Martin has not done so. Instead, he has responded with insults, threats of federal litigation, and continued reargument of issues which have already been determined adversely to him....
While we are cognizant of the access to courts implications of refusing to accept any more petitions from [the petitioner] unless they are signed by an attorney, we are also concerned that failure to impose this sanction will handicap this Court’s ability to timely review the many other petitions filed by inmates and other petitioners who have not abused the system. While on the one hand, we would like to say that the courts should never limit a person’s ability to access the courts, on the other hand, there are a handful of petitioners who have so abused the system that failure to restrain them could deny or delay the right of access to courts for the rest of the populace. Even the United States Supreme Court has had to face the difficult perspective of putting significant restraints on some of its pro se litigants. Several of the members of the United States Supreme Court did not agree that limits should ever be placed on a litigant; however, a majority of that Court has found [in In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989),] that in extreme circumstances, it was necessary to do so to ensure free access to the courts in general.

Martin, 833 So.2d at 760 (alterations in original) (quoting Jackson v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrections, 790 So.2d 398, 401 (Fla.2001)).

Other jurisdictions have also imposed sanctions on litigants who abused the legal system by using profanity. In Washington v. Alaimo, 934 F.Supp. 1895 (S.D.Ga.1996), for example, a federal district court sanctioned an inmate for, among other things, his “Motion to Kiss My A** ” in which he moved “all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] dam* a** sorry mother f***** you.” Id. at 1396. The Court stated that Washington had “wasted the time of many an innocent party and [had] flippantly used the resources of the judiciary with his abusive motions filing practice.” Id. at 1397. Thus, the court concluded that Washington’s

recreational litigation has gone on for entirely too long and at great expense to the American taxpayer. Too many resources have been wasted and too many innocent people harassed. This Court now considers what discretion it has to prevent the future waste of judicial resources.

Id. at 1399. The court then required Washington pay all filing fees for any further actions and post a $1300 contempt bond for each case filed. The bond would be forfeited were Washington to engage in any further contemptuous behavior.

In Werner v. Utah, 32 F.3d 1446 (10th Cir.1994), the inmate petitioner there had also engaged in much litigation. However, when court orders or other correspondence were sent to him regarding his litigation, he refused to accept the correspondence and wrote obscenities and threats on the envelopes, which were then returned to the court. The court there severely restricted Werner’s filing abilities.

Accordingly, in order to preserve the dignity of the judicial system we hereby instruct the Clerk of this Court to accept no pleading for filing from Tasse unless that pleading is submitted and signed by an attorney who represents Tasse and who is a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.

      . We have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(8) of the Florida Constitution.

        . See Tasse v. Norman, 819 So.2d 140 (Fla.2002)(table) (No. SC01-1615) (mandamus denied); Tasse v. Nielson, 786 So.2d 1189 (Fla.2001) (table) (No. SC01-207) (petition for discretionary review of Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision denied based on lack of jurisdiction); Tasse v. Norman, 760 So.2d 948 (Fla.2000) (table) (No. SC00-200) (petition for discretionary review of Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Tasse v. Denowitz, 660 So.2d 715 (Fla.1995) (table) (No. 86,113) (petition for discretionary review of Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Tasse v. Norman, 782 So.2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (table) (No. 5D00-3476) (summary affirmance); Tasse v. New River Boat Club, Inc., 745 So.2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (No. 99-2237) (summary affirmance); Tasse v. Denowitz, 654 So.2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (table) (No. 94-0880) (per curiam affirmance).

      . See Lussy v. Fourth District Court of Appeal, 828 So.2d 1026 (Fla.2002); Armstead v. State, 817 So.2d 841 (Fla.2002); Peterson v. State, 817 So.2d 838 (Fla.2002); Jackson v. Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 790 So.2d 398 (Fla.2001); Green v. Moore, 786 So.2d 579 (Fla.2000) (table) (No. SC00-137); Martin v. State, 747 So.2d 386 (Fla.2000); Ranson v. State, 727 So.2d 909 (Fla.1999) (table) (No. 94,306); Ranson v. Mills, 727 So.2d 909 (Fla.1999) (table) (No. 94,305); Rivera v. State, 773 So.2d 56 (Fla.1998) (table) (No. 93,074); Rivera v. State, 728 So.2d 1165 (Fla.1998) (table) (No. 92,601); Mathis v. Singletary, 760 So.2d 947 (Fla.1998) (table) (No. 92,098); Vickson v. The Florida Bar, 717 So.2d 541 (Fla.1998) (table) (No. 92,256); Foster v. State, 717 So.2d 531 (Fla.1998) (table) (No. 92,424); Aysisayh v. State, 701 So.2d 867 (Fla.1997) (table) (No. 89,927); Attwood v. Singletary, 661 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1995).


author: PARIENTE, J.

text:
    Jeno F. PAULUCCI, et al., Petitioners, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, et al., Respondents.
    No. SC01-2346.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 20, 2003.

      David H. Simmons, Dale T. Gobel and Daniel J. O’Malley of Drage, deBeaubien, Knight, Simmons, Mantzaris & Neal, Orlando, FL, for Petitioners.
    Steven L. Brannock, Rory C. Ryan and Stacy D. Blank of Holland & Knight LLP, Tampa, FL, for Respondents.
   PARIENTE, J.

We have for review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in General Dynamics Corp. v. Paulucci, 797 So.2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), which certified a question of great public importance and also certified conflict with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwald, 321 So.2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We have jurisdiction, see art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const., and rephrase the certified question as follows:

DOES A COURT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHERE THE COURT HAS EITHER INCORPORATED THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INTO A FINAL JUDGMENT OR APPROVED THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY ORDER AND RETAINED JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE ITS TERMS?

For the reasons that follow, we answer the rephrased question in the affirmative and hold that regardless of whether the remedy sought is outside the scope of the original pleadings, a court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement where the court has either incorporated the agreement into a final judgment or approved the agreement by order and retained jurisdiction to enforce it terms.

FACTS

In 1996, the Pauluccis filed a complaint alleging that General Dynamics Corporation or other named corporations or limited partnerships associated with it (hereinafter “GDC”) had contaminated the Pauluccis’ warehouse property when GDC leased it from the Pauluccis. On July 24, 1998, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that required GDC pay the Pauluccis a total of $3,000,000. The settlement agreement also required GDC to

promptly initiate contact with the DEP [Department of Environmental Protection] concerning the Environmental Condition of the property to maintain the NFA [No Further Action Letter] or to obtain reissuance of the NFA, and if required by the DEP for such purposes, [to] investigate and implement clean up, remediation, and monitoring activities.

The parties also agreed that

[i]f after 15 months from the date of this Settlement Agreement, there is no valid No Further Action (NFA) letter in place with regard to the property in question, then Plaintiffs shall be entitled to and Defendants shall pay to Plaintiffs, monthly payments (paid on the first of each month) equal to the difference between the fair market value of the lease rate of the property and any current monthly rental for each month following the 15 month period until a valid NFA letter is issued.

The Pauluccis and GDC requested that the trial court approve the settlement agreement and incorporate it into the final judgment. The trial court approved the agreement and incorporated it into a final judgment issued July 29, 1998, in which the court retained “jurisdiction of this matter in order to enforce, construe, interpret, and otherwise insure compliance by the Parties with the Settlement Agreement.”

Subsequent to the final judgment, various motions were filed in the trial court by the Pauluccis alleging noncompliance by GDC with the terms of the settlement agreement. The trial court entered an order that stated in part:

The Settlement Agreement in the present case contemplated further enforcement litigation. It settled all matters between the parties except for obligations set forth in the Settlement Agreement. It provided for the trial court to approve the Settlement Agreement, incorporate it into the Final Judgment, and for the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement even provided for limited confidentiality in case the Agreement needed to be enforced. Further, the parties specified the calculation of damages should the Defendants fail to timely satisfy their obligations under the Settlement Agreement.... Finally, the Settlement Agreement gave the Defendants full, complete and uninterrupted control over the Environmental Condition of the property for 15 months from the date of the Settlement Agreement, July 24, 1998. However, the Settlement Agreement did not provide for a jury trial or for punitive damages. The court is not free to vary these terms.
While the Plaintiffs may file a motion in this court to enforce the Settlement Agreement, they may not file an action for its breach or for a statutory violation of Chapter 376, Florida Statutes; that must be done in a separate action. Further, an action to enforce the Settlement Agreement did not become ripe until 15 months after the effective date of the Settlement Agreement which was October 24,1999.

(Citations omitted.)

On appeal, the Fifth District observed that the trial court’s solution to the jurisdictional issue was “reasonable.” However, the Fifth District concluded that its prior decision in Wallace v. Townsell, 471 So.2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), required that any action seeking to enforce a settlement agreement “be brought in a separate action, by complaint and not motion, giving the defendant the opportunity to plead ... defenses and request a jury trial if appropriate.” Paulucci 797 So.2d at 21. Thus, the Fifth District reversed the trial court’s order, holding that the trial court had no “subject matter jurisdiction” to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement because the remedy sought was outside the scope of the original pollution action. See id. at 20-21. Nevertheless, the Fifth District expressed reservations about the wisdom of its decision:

A complaint is, of course, essential to initiate an action. But its purpose is to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and to give notice of the claim. Has not that purpose been met when the parties stipulate in their settlement agreement resolving an action for which the court already has jurisdiction that based on a certain event occurring, or based on failure of a certain event to timely occur, stipulated consequences will flow and also agree that the court approving the settlement is authorized to determine whether such event did or did not occur and whether such consequences should or should not be suffered? Can it not be said that the settlement agreement approved by the court and adopted as part of the final judgment together with the agreement of the parties that the court can enforce that agreement, in effect, “amended” the initial pleadings and waived any claim for a jury trial?

Id. at 21. Accordingly, the Fifth District certified a question of great public importance to this Court and certified conflict with the Third District’s decision in Buckley Towers.

ANALYSIS

Seventy years ago this Court recognized that “[wjhen a judgment or decree has once been rendered, the court loses jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit, other than to see that proper entry of judgment or decree is made and that the rights determined and fixed by it are properly enforced.” Davidson v. Stringer, 109 Fla. 238, 147 So. 228, 229 (1933) (emphasis supplied). More recently, we have reaffirmed that "a trial judge has the inherent power to do those things necessary to enforce its orders.” Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608-09 (Fla.1994).

The issue before us in Paulucci concerns the jurisdiction of the trial court to enforce a settlement agreement that has been specifically approved by the trial court and incorporated in the final judgment. In the certified conflict case, Buckley Towers, the trial court approved the settlement agreement in an order that expressly provided:

The above styled consolidated cases are dismissed with prejudice. The Court retains jurisdiction of this consolidated litigation solely for the purpose of enforcing the terms, provisions and conditions of said Agreement, and for the entry of such orders as may be necessary or reasonably required in connection with the performance of said Agreement.

321 So.2d at 628-29. The Third District rejected the appellant’s contention that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement, noting that “[t]here are numerous case law holdings that even without an express reservation thereof, jurisdiction inherently remains in the trial court to make such orders as may be necessary to enforce its judgment.” Id. at 629.

In Kinser v. Crum, 823 So.2d 826, 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), the First District cited the Third District’s decision in Buckley Towers with approval and held that the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement entered into by the parties. As in Buckley Towers, the trial court in Kinser reviewed the settlement agreement and expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce its terms in the order of dismissal. The pertinent facts in Kinser were set forth by the First District as follows:

The terms of the settlement agreement provided that Appellees would have the right to market and sell certain property for a period of one year, and included the following language: “Plaintiffs [Ap-pellees] shall dismiss this case with prejudice subject only to reserving the right to enforce this agreement.” Before dismissing the suit, Appellees filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Appellants argued that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the contract and that, instead, Appellees should file a separate suit to allege a breach of the settlement agreement. Appellants filed a motion requesting the trial court dismiss the case with prejudice, as required by the settlement agreement. On October 14, 1998, the trial court entered an order of dismissal, stating:
1. The court has reviewed the settlement agreement entered into by the parties, which has been filed with the court.
2. The court relies on the settlement in dismissing this action.
The trial court adjudged the action dismissed with prejudice, except “[t]his court specifically retains continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.” The trial court entered Final Judgment against Appellants, and awarded damages to Appel-lees pursuant to a mathematical calculation contained in the settlement agreement.

Id. at 827 (emphasis supplied) (alterations in the original).

In MCR Funding v. CMG Funding Corp., 771 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), the Fourth District explained the difference between cases such as Paulucci, Buckley Towers, and Kinser, where parties present their settlement agreement to the trial court for approval prior to final judgment or dismissal of the action, and cases where the parties voluntarily dismiss the action without an order of the court as provided for in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420:

Once parties to a lawsuit have reached settlement, the common resolution is an agreement by the plaintiff to dismiss the pending lawsuit in exchange for other mutual agreements between the parties. Sometimes these other agreements may take some time to complete, and are not contemplated to be completed prior to the plaintiffs dismissal of the lawsuit. If there is a breach of the settlement agreement by any one of the parties, there may yet be a need for judicial involvement in the dispute. If the litigants have presented their settlement to the judge, who in turn incorporated or relied upon that settlement agreement and entered an order of dismissal predicated on the parties’ settlement agreement, the litigants may later file a motion in the dismissed case seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement....
On some occasions ... settlement is reached, and dismissal is later achieved by the parties without an order of court pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420. When this is the route taken and the parties have neither presented the settlement agreement to the judge nor obtained an order of dismissal predicated upon the same, a party will not be able to obtain enforcement of the settlement agreement by simply filing a motion in the now-dismissed case if one of the other parties to the agreement objects. By voluntarily dismissing their suit, the litigants have removed their dispute from the judge’s consideration .... In this instance, the parties .would ordinarily have to pursue a new breach of contract action to enforce the settlement agreement.

MCR Funding, 771 So.2d at 34-35 (footnote and citation omitted).

We agree with this distinction and, consistent with the principles expressed in Davidson and Levin, Middle-brooks, hold that when a court incorporates a settlement agreement into a final judgment or approves a settlement agreement by order and retains jurisdiction to enforce its terms, the court has the jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement even if the terms are outside the scope of the remedy sought in the original pleadings. However, the extent of the court’s continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement is circumscribed by the terms of that agreement. Thus, if a party is claiming a breach of the agreement and is seeking general damages not specified in the agreement, the appropriate action would be to file a separate lawsuit.

We further approve of the distinction between the enforcement of the terms of the agreement and a general claim for breach of the agreement set forth by the Fifth District in its decision below:

By enforcing a contract, it is assumed that the contract has continuing validity and a party is ordered to comply with its terms. A breach of contract action presupposes that the contractual relationship is at an end because of a material breach by one party and damages are sought by the non-breaching party as a substitute for performance.

Paulucci, 797 So.2d at 20.

Applying these legal principles to this case, “the court approving the agreement had the authority to enforce GDC’s obligation to pay the stipulated rental if it determined that a valid NFA letter was not in place fifteen months after the date of the agreement but that any action for damages under the general breach provision (as opposed to enforcement of a duty accepted in the contract) would have to be instituted as a separate action.” Id. Accordingly, we answer the rephrased question in the affirmative and approve the Third District’s decision in Buckley Towers and the First District’s decision in Kinser. We disapprove the Fifth District’s decision in Wallace and quash the Fifth District’s decision in Paulucci to the extent that both decisions are inconsistent with this opinion. We remand this case to the Fifth District for further consideration.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., WELLS, LEWIS, QUINCE and CANTERO, JJ., and SHAW, Senior Justice, concur.

      . Subsequently, the First District in Kinser v. Crum, 823 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), certified conflict with Paulucci. In Kinser, the First District found "an irreconcilable difference between Buckley Towers" and the opinions of the Fifth District in Wallace v. Townsell, 471 So.2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), George Vining & Sons, Inc. v. Jones, 498 So.2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and Paulucci. See Kinser, 823 So.2d at 827.

      . The question as certified by the Fifth District states:
      DOES A COURT WHICH APPROVES A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE TERMS THEREOF EVEN IF THE REMEDY SOUGHT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL PLEADINGS?

        Paulucci, 797 So.2d at 21. Although both parties agree that the certified question should be answered in the affirmative, we denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss in order to address the Fifth District’s certified question and resolve the certified conflict.

      . Jurisdiction is a broad term that includes several concepts, each with its own legal significance. In Paulucci, the Fifth District characterized the issue before it as one of the trial court's "subject matter jurisdiction.” See 797 So.2d at 21. We conclude that framing the issue as one of subject matter jurisdiction is inaccurate. Subject matter jurisdiction "means no more than the power lawfully existing to hear and determine a cause.” Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So.2d 179, 181 (Fla.1994) (quoting Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677, 683 (1926)). It "concerns the power of the trial court to deal with a class of cases to which a particular case belongs.” Id. Rather, the issue presented by the certified question is more aptly described as one of the trial court’s "continuing jurisdiction.” Cf. Finkelstein v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., 484 So.2d 1241, 1243 (Fla.1986) (finding that the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to entertain a post-judgment motion for attorney’s fees).

      . Rule 1.420 states in pertinent part:
      (a) Voluntary Dismissal.
      (1) By Parties. Except in actions in which property has been seized or is in the custody of the court, an action may be dismissed by plaintiff without order of court (A) before trial by serving, or during trial by stating on the record, a notice of dismissal at any time before a hearing on motion for summary judgment, or if none is served or if the motion is denied, before retirement of the jury in a case tried before a jury or before submission of a nonjury case to the court for decision, or (B) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice.... A voluntary dismissal under rule 1.420(a) divests the trial court of continuing jurisdiction over the case. See Randle-Eastern Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So.2d 68, 69 (Fla.1978).

      . We limit the scope of this decision to those cases in which the trial court has either entered a final judgment incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement or approved the agreement by order and expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce its terms, because this reflects the facts presented in Paulucci, Buckley Towers, and Kinser. Further, we conclude that in cases where the approval of the settlement agreement is by order rather than by incorporating the terms into a final judgment, the statement in the order that the trial court expressly retains jurisdiction to enforce its terms makes it clear that all parties and the court contemplated an express retention of jurisdiction rather than the necessity of an independent lawsuit.

      . Noting that the case might be remanded, the Fifth District addressed two additional issues: (1) "whether the Pauluccis proved the condition precedent justifying the award of the stipulated rental payments”; and (2) “whether the award of attorneys' fees and costs were appropriate.” Paulucci, 797 So.2d at 20. We decline to address these issues, which are outside the scope of the certified question. See Gouty v. Schnepel, 795 So.2d 959, 966 n. 4 (Fla.2001); Crocker v. Pleasant, 778 So.2d 978, 989 (Fla.2001).


author: QUINCE, J.

text:
    Frank C. WALKER, Jr., etc., et al., Petitioners, v. VIRGINIA INSURANCE RECIPROCAL, etc., et al., Respondents.
    No. SC00-1710.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 20, 2003.

      Craig A. Dennis and William T. Jackson of Dennis & Bowman, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioners.
    Michael T. Callahan of Callahan & Martinez, Saint Petersburg, FL, for Respondents.
   QUINCE, J.

We have for review the decision in Virginia Insurance Reciprocal v. Walker, 765 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), which certified conflict with the decision in Wendel v. Hauser, 726 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we approve the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Virginia Insurance Reciprocal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Emily Aumon was transferred to Scottish Rite Children’s Medical Center, Inc., in Atlanta, Georgia, on June 4, 1991, the day after she was born. After Emily was discharged from Scottish Rite on June 14, 1991, Dr. Frank C. Walker assumed Emily’s care in Tallahassee, Florida. Approximately eleven months later, Emily’s parents, Ann and Robert Aumon, sought a second opinion from Dr. Larry Deeb, who diagnosed Emily with a condition known as congenital hypothyroidism. This condition can be detected by routine metabolic testing and can be treated effectively if the diagnosis is made soon after birth. However, neither the physicians at Scottish Rite Children’s Medical Center nor Dr. Walker conducted the testing required to diagnose hypothyroidism.

Following Dr. Deeb’s diagnosis, the Au-mons filed a medical malpractice suit against Scottish Rite and the physicians who treated Emily in Georgia, alleging that Emily was injured because of their failure to test her for hypothyroidism. The Aumons claimed Scottish Rite failed to test Emily for hypothyroidism within one week of her birth as required by Georgia public health laws and failed to determine if the hospital where she was born had done so. The suit further alleged that this failure to diagnose Emily’s condition left her with permanent physical impairments and mental retardation.

Virginia Insurance Reciprocal, Inc. (Virginia Insurance), Scottish Rite’s insurer, settled with the Aumons for $1.65 million on June 11, 1997. Virginia Insurance also prepared to assert a contribution claim against Dr. Walker (Walker) and his professional association, on the grounds that Walker had also negligently failed to diagnose Emily’s condition and this negligence was the partial cause of the loss for which Virginia Insurance had compensated the Aumons. Because the contribution claim was based on a claim of medical malpractice, Virginia Insurance complied with the medical malpractice presuit screening requirements of sections 766.104 and 766.203, Florida Statutes (1997).

On May 14, 1998, Virginia Insurance served an “intent to litigate” against Walker, as provided in section 766.106(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998). When the claim was not resolved during the presuit screening process, Virginia Insurance filed a complaint for contribution against Walker in circuit court on November 13, 1998, contending it was entitled to contribution because it had paid more than its pro rata share of the common liability of those released in the underlying suit. See § 768.31(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). Walker answered the complaint by denying the allegations and moving for summary judgment on the ground that Virginia Insurance’s contribution claim was barred by the statute of limitations in section 768.31(4). Virginia Insurance did not dispute that the complaint had been filed more than one calendar year after it had settled the claim on behalf of Scottish Rite, but argued that the statute of limitations was tolled during the presuit screening procedure and thus the complaint was timely filed. Walker responded that the presuit screening requirements were inapplicable to contribution claims and thus any effort to comply with the requirements had no effect on the statute of limitations in this case.

The circuit court granted Walker’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the statute of limitations in section 768.31(4)(d) had not been tolled during the time that Virginia Insurance was attempting to comply with the presuit screening procedure in section 766.106 and thus the complaint for contribution was not timely. The circuit court based its ruling on the decision in Wendel v. Hauser, 726 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). On appeal, the First District disagreed with the Fourth District’s reasoning in Wendel, reversed the summary judgment, and certified conflict with the decision in Wendel.

In Wendel, the Fourth District concluded that the plain language of section 766.106, which defines those claims subject to the presuit screening procedure, does not encompass claims for contribution. 726 So.2d at 380. Thus, the Fourth District held that “the presuit screening procedures initiated by [the plaintiff] did not toll the time for filing [the] action for contribution.” Id. The Fourth District also rejected the plaintiffs argument that the district court’s previous decision in Walt Disney World Co. v. Memorial Hospital, 363 So.2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), also applied to the presuit screening process in chapter 766, Florida Statutes. In Walt Disney, the Fourth District concluded that Disney World’s claim for contribution against Memorial Hospital was subject to the medical malpractice mediation requirements. Id. at 599-600. In Wendel, however, the Fourth District concluded that section 766.106 “more narrowly defines those claims subject to presuit screening procedures than did its predecessor [statute which was at issue in Walt Disney ].” Wendel, 726 So.2d at 380.

This Court accepted review to resolve the conflict between Wendel and Virginia Insurance Reciprocal on this issue.

DISCUSSION

The conflict issue involves the intersection of statutory provisions of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act and the Florida Medical Malpractice Act when an action for contribution is based on medical malpractice. Section 768.31, the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, governs the procedure to be followed by petitioners who file contribution claims based on an injury to person or property or a wrongful death. Section 768.31(4)(d)2 specifically provides that an action for contribution is barred unless the tortfeasor seeking contribution commences the action for contribution within one year after paying an agreement for liability. Chapter 766 sets out a complex presuit investigation procedure that both the claimant and the defendant must follow before a medical negligence claim may be brought in court. The Legislature has unambiguously dictated:

No action shall be filed for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical negligence, whether in tort or contract, unless the attorney filing the action has made a reasonable investigation as permitted by the circumstances to determine that there are grounds for a good faith belief that there has been negligence in the care or treatment of the claimant.

§ 766.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Even after satisfying this prerequisite, a potential claimant must follow the procedures outlined in section 766.106, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), before filing a medical malpractice action. Section 766.106(2) requires notice to all prospective defendants of the claimant’s intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice; section 766.106(3) provides that the suit may not be filed for ninety days after this notice is mailed to the prospective defendants; and section 766.106(4) tolls the statute of limitations during this ninety-day period as to all potential defendants. The certified conflict requires us to determine which statutory provision controls when there is a question concerning the applicable statute of limitations for a contribution action based on an underlying medical malpractice claim. More specifically, we must determine whether the one-year statute of limitations outlined in section 768.31(4)(d)2 relating to contribution actions was tolled during compliance with the presuit screening procedure in chapter 766. In order to make this determination, we must first examine the legislative intent in enacting these provisions.

Legislative intent must be determined primarily from the language of the statute. See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 609 So.2d 1315, 1317 (Fla.1992). Section 766.106(1)(a), which outlines the presuit procedures for medical malpractice actions, defines a claim for medical malpractice as “a claim arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” Section 768.31(2)(a) provides that a right to contribution occurs where “two or more persons become jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property, or for the same wrongful death.” Further, “there is a right of contribution among [the tortfeasors] even though judgment has not been recovered against all or any of them.” Id. While neither statute explicitly references the other, the language of each statute implicitly refers to the other. For instance, the “injury” referred to in section 768.31(2)(a) can arise in any number of tortious contexts, including medical malpractice. See, e.g., Florida Patient’s Comp. Fund v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 559 So.2d 195 (Fla.1990) (involving an action for contribution and subrogation brought by an insurer against its insured’s employer and the employer’s insurer after settlement of a medical malpractice action); Canal Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 424 So.2d 749 (Fla.1982) (involving an action for contribution by an insurer against a predecessor insurer that did not file a policy expiration); Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 387 So.2d 932 (Fla.1980) (involving an action for contribution by a vehicle passenger against the driver and his insurer).

Likewise, the phrase “claim for medical malpractice” in section 766.106(1)(a) necessarily includes contribution claims based on medical malpractice because such a contribution claim would “aris[e] out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care.” Moreover, in order to properly proceed under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, a contribution claimant raising an issue related to medical malpractice must establish that the tortfeasor does in fact share a portion of liability for the injury. See § 768.31(2), Fla. Stat. (1997); see also Chiang v. Wildcat Groves, Inc., 703 So.2d 1083, 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (stating that it is “well-settled Florida law that to support an action for contribution under section 768.31(2)(a), the pleading must allege common liability”). In those instances where the tortious conduct involves medical malpractice, the common liability would have to be established by following the presuit screening procedure mandated by chapter 766. Cf. Musculoskeletal Inst. Chartered v. Parham, 745 So.2d 946, 950 (Fla.1999) (“[T]he investigation requirements permeate the constituent provisions of chapter 766 and are the driving force behind the numerous procedural hurdles that must be cleared before a claim can ever proceed to trial.”). In cases of medical malpractice, the two statutes are inextricably linked and must be read together to fulfill the legislative intent of each.

One of the primary goals of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act is to encourage settlement. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Shure, 647 So.2d 877, 880-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The Medical Malpractice Act also “expressly sets forth the Legislature’s intent to provide a mechanism for the prompt resolution of medical malpractice claims through mandatory presuit investigation and voluntary binding arbitration of damages.” St. Mary’s Hospital, Inc. v. Phillips, 769 So.2d 961, 969-70 (Fla.2000); see also § 766.201(2), Fla. Stat. (1997) (“It is the intent of the Legislature to provide a plan for prompt resolution of medical negligence claims.”). Thus, the legislative intent of both statutes is to avoid lengthy litigation of claims and the associated costs of such litigation. See, e.g., Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla.1996) (explaining that the notice requirement in section 766.106(2) “established a process intended to promote the settlement of meritorious claims at an early stage without the necessity of a full adversarial proceeding”).

If there has been “no judgment for the injury or wrongful death against the tortfeasors seeking contribution,” the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act bars the tortfeasor’s right of contribution “unless she or he has ... [a]greed, while action is pending against her or him, to discharge the common liability and has within 1 year after the agreement paid the liability and commenced her or his action for contribution.” § 768.31(4)(d)2, Fla. Stat. (1997). While medical malpractice claims are not specifically mentioned in this provision, the common liability required by section 768.31(4)(d) must be established pursuant to the Medical Malpractice Act where the contribution action is based on medical malpractice. The Medical Malpractice Act specifically requires presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and applies to “all medical negligence ... claims and defenses.” § 766.203(1), Fla. Stat. (1997) (emphasis added). This statute further provides that prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation pursuant to section 766.106, a claimant must “conduct an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe” that the defendant was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant and that this negligence resulted in injury to the claimant. § 766.203(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). Thus, prior to instituting any action relating to medical malpractice a claimant must determine whether there is a “reasonable ground to believe” that the putative tort-feasor is in fact liable. Because the Legislature did not specifically exclude contribution actions from the purview of this statutory requirement or the other presuit procedures outlined in chapter 766, we conclude that the presuit procedures apply to contribution actions which are based on medical malpractice.

As the First District noted, case law from other states supports this interpretation of the Florida statutes. See, e.g., Krasaeath v. Parker, 212 Ga.App. 525, 441 S.E.2d 868, 870 (1994) (holding that contribution action based on medical malpractice could be brought as separate independent suit, but was governed by five-year statute of repose for medical malpractice cases and not twenty-year statute of limitation for contribution because recovery was predicated on proof of doctor’s professional negligence); Hayes v. Mercy Hosp. & Medical Ctr., 136 Ill.2d 450, 145 Ill.Dec. 894, 557 N.E.2d 873, 876 (1990) (concluding that action for contribution against physician for injuries arising out of patient care is “action for damages” under medical malpractice statute of repose and subject to four-year statute of repose in medical malpractice statute); Adler v. Hyman, 334 Md. 568, 640 A.2d 1100, 1102 (1994) (concluding that insurer’s action for contribution after settlement of medical malpractice claim was subject to arbitration under the provisions of Maryland’s Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, in spite of insurer’s argument that its claim arose from the settlement payment and not from the alleged malpractice). In each of these cases from other jurisdictions, the courts determined that an action for contribution which is based on medical malpractice is subject to the statutory provisions governing medical malpractice claims. Although the statutes governing contribution claims may delineate certain time limits in which claims must be brought, those limits may be superseded or supplanted by time provisions in the statutes governing the underlying basis of the contribution claim. See, e.g., Hayes, 145 Ill.Dec. 894, 557 N.E.2d at 877 (concluding that medical malpractice statute of repose governs actions for contribution for injuries arising out of patient care because the suit for contribution “exposes insurance companies to the same Lability as if the patient [had] brought a direct action against the insured”).

As provided in section 766.106(3)(a), a medical malpractice claimant may not file suit for a period of ninety days after notice of intent to initiate litigation is mailed to the prospective defendants. During this time period, the insurer must conduct a review to determine the liability of the defendant. § 766.106(3)(a). By the end of this ninety-day period, if not before, the insurer must either reject the claim, make a settlement offer, or make an offer to admit liability and submit to arbitration on the issue of damages. § 766.106(3)(b). “[T]he purpose of the[se] chapter 766 presuit requirements is to alleviate the high cost of medical negligence claims through early determination and prompt resolution of claims.... ” Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So.2d 835, 838 (Fla.1993). We agree with the First District that these policy considerations apply equally to medical malpractice claims asserted directly by an injured party and those asserted by a joint tortfeasor seeking to recover a share of the loss. See Virginia Ins. Reciprocal, 765 So.2d at 232. “A claim for medical malpractice does not change its character merely because it is asserted by another medical provider who is also at fault.” Id. at 234. In either circumstance the medical provider is “facing a charge of medical malpractice and should be entitled to the protection afforded by the presuit screening procedure.” Id. Thus, we agree with the First District that “there is no reasonable basis to distinguish between a medical malpractice claim made in the original lawsuit and a medical malpractice claim made in a subsequent complaint for contribution.” Id. at 235.

We further agree with the First District’s assessment of the decision in Walt Disney World Co. v. Memorial Hospital, 363 So.2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In dismissing Disney World’s contribution claim for noncompliance with the medical malpractice mediation requirements, the Fourth District stressed that mediation was required to determine whether Memorial Hospital “was actually actionably negligent in the care or treatment of the patient” in order to support the contribution claim. Id. at 600. As aptly expressed by the First District, the point of both the presuit screening requirements at issue here and the mediation requirement at issue in Walt Disney is “to resolve the underlying claim of medical malpractice,” not to resolve an issue of contribution. Virginia Ins. Reciprocal, 765 So.2d at 233.

Having determined that a contribution claim based on medical malpractice is subject to the presuit screening requirements of chapter 766, including the provisions that toll the statute of limitations, we caution contribution claimants that the presuit screening requirements are not applicable where the liability of the joint tortfeasor has already been determined. See Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Abaunza, 563 So.2d 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). As explained by the Third District in Baptist Hospital, these “statutory procedures are intended to be applied preliminary to a determination of liability. Where there has been a determination of liability on the professional negligence claim, an action for contribution is not properly deemed to be within the statutory definitions of sections 766.104 and 766.106.” Id. at 175 (citation omitted); accord Virginia Ins. Reciprocal, 765 So.2d at 235.

For the reasons expressed above, we hold that the time for filing a suit for contribution based on a claim of medical malpractice may be tolled by compliance with the medical malpractice statutory presuit screening requirements in chapter 766. Accordingly, we approve the decision in Virginia Insurance Reciprocal and disapprove the decision in Wendel.

It is so ordered.

ANSTEAD, C.J., WELLS, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., and SHAW and HARDING, Senior Justices, concur.

      . Section 766.104(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that no medical negligence action can be filed unless the attorney filing the action has made a reasonable investigation to determine a good faith belief that there has been negligence in the care or treatment of the claimant. The initial pleading must be accompanied by a certificate of counsel attesting to such.

      . Section 766.203, Florida Statutes (1997), which is entitled "Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses by prospective parties," provides in pertinent part:
      (1) Presuit investigation of medical negligence claims and defenses pursuant to this section and ss. 766.204-766.206 shall apply to all medical negligence, including dental negligence, claims and defenses. This shall include:
      (a) Rights of action under s. 768.19 and defenses thereto.
      (b) Rights of action involving the state or its agencies or subdivisions, or the officers, employees, or agents thereof, pursuant to s. 768.28 and defenses thereto.
      (2) Prior to issuing notification of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation pursuant to s. 766.106, the claimant shall conduct an investigation to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds to believe that:
      (a) Any named defendant in the litigation was negligent iri the care or treatment of the claimant; and
      (b) Such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant.

      (3)Prior to issuing its response to the claimant's notice of intent to initiate litigation, during the time period for response authorized pursuant to s. 766.106, the defendant or the defendant’s insurer or self-insurer. shall conduct an investigation to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that:
      (a) The defendant was negligent in the care or treatment of the claimant; and
      (b) Such negligence resulted in injury to the claimant.

      .As provided in section 766.106(2), after the presuit investigation required by section 766.203 is complete a claimant must notify each prospective defendant, and the Department of Health if any prospective defendant is a licensed health care provider, of intent to initiate litigation for medical malpractice.

      . Section 766.106(4) further provides that this ninety-day period may be extended by stipulation of the parties and that the statute of limitations is tolled during any such extension.

      . We recognize that some states have held that contribution actions based on medical negligence are not subject to the statutory requirements that would otherwise apply to an initial complaint for medical negligence. See, e.g., Rowland v. Skaggs Companies, Inc., 666 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Mo.1984).

      . However, this does not include those circumstances where a nonparty is determined to have responsibility on a verdict form and is included on the form because of Fabre requirements. See Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1993), receded from on other grounds by Wells v. Tallahassee Mem. Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 659 So.2d 249 (Fla.1995).