and sentence for driving under the influence with serious bodily injury. Bar ber’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We find no merit to the issues raised by Barber. However, our independent review of the record reveals that Barber may be entitled to resentencing. The Supreme Court of Florida has recently ruled that chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, which enacted the 1995 sentencing guidelines, violates the single subject rule. See Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). The record reveals that Barber was sentenced under the 1995 sentencing guidelines. Since her offense was committed on July 27, 1996, Barber has standing to assert entitlement to resentencing. See Smith v. State, 761 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the trial court stated at the
holding that only those persons whose offenses were committed on or after october 1 1995 and before may 24 1997 have standing to challenge their sentences under heggs holding that persons challenging a sentence imposed under the 1995 sentencing guidelines have standing to do so if the relevant criminal offense occurred on or after october 1 1995 and before may 25 1997 holding that the window period for standing to challenge chapter 95184 on single subject rule grounds in most cases opened on october 1 1995 and closed on may 24 1997 holding that those persons with standing to challenge their sentences under heggs were those whose offenses were committed on or after october 1 1995 and before may 24 1997 holding that only those defendants whose offenses occurred between october 1 1995 and may 27 1997 have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines addressed by heggs