SMALL v. STATE (2023)

Appellant, Bruce L. Small, an incarcerated inmate, challenges an order dismissing his civil action against the State of Florida. In the operative complaint, Small alleged that application of the habitual felony offender provisions contained within section 775.084, Florida Statutes (2006), violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution because he committed one of the two prior crimes relied upon to enhance his sentence prior the enactment of the statute. See Art. I, § 10, cl. 1, U.S. Const. The trial court dismissed the case on res judicata grounds. Having conducted a de novo review of the record and observing that this court, along with the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, has previously rejected such a challenge, we impute no error in the decision under review. See Small v. State, 305 So. 3d 615, 615–16 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Small v. State, 303 So. 3d 185, 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Small v. State, 298 So. 3d 611, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Small v. Florida, 578 U.S. 932, 932, 136 S.Ct. 1677, 194 L.Ed.2d 784 (2016); Small v. State, 175 So. 3d 316, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Small v. State, 182 So. 3d 635, 635 (Fla. 2015); see also State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290 (Fla. 2003); Raulerson v. State, 609 So. 2d 1301, 1301 (Fla. 1992); Perkins v. State, 583 So. 2d 1103, 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We therefore affirm on all grounds.

Affirmed.

MILLER, J.