DONNELL MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Donnell Miller was convicted of burglary and dealing in stolen property and sentenced under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act and habitual felony offender statute. Miller appealed challenging the constitutionality of the PRR Act on multiple grounds, but the court affirmed his convictions while certifying a question of great public importance regarding the Act's constitutionality.
The court affirmed Miller's convictions and rejected all constitutional challenges to the PRR Act and the sentencing scheme. The court found no violation of double jeopardy principles where the trial court did not sentence Miller as both a PRR and an HFO on each count. Miller's final argument regarding statutory interpretation was not properly preserved for appeal.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act does not violate the Florida Constitution's separation of powers clause, single subject requirement, due process, equal prot…
[2] Designating a defendant as a Prison Releasee Reoffender for one offense and a Habitual Felony Offender for other offenses, with sentences imposed concurrently, does not v…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We have previously considered and rejected these arguments in other cases and do so again here.”
The court's basis for dismissing Miller's constitutional challenges to the PRR Act by relying on prior precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller was convicted by jury of burglary of a dwelling and two counts of dealing in stolen property. He was designated a prison releasee reoffender (P…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Single Subject Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Donnell Miller was convicted by a jury of burglary of a dwelling and two counts of dealing in stolen property. For the burglary, he was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment due to his designation as a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”). For the two counts of dealing in stolen property, he was designated a habitual felony offender (“HFO”) and sentenced to two 25-year sentences. The three sentences were imposed concurrently to each other. Miller appeals, raising a number of challenges primarily to the Prison Releas-ee Reoffender Punishment Act, section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1997) (“Act”). We affirm.
Miller claims that the Act is an unconstitutional violation of the Florida Constitution’s separation of powers clause and the single subject requirement. He argues that the Act violates state and federal constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection, as well as prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. He asserts that the Act is also void for vagueness. We have previously considered and rejected these arguments in other cases and do so again here. See Turner v. State, 745 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Jackson v. State, 744 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 740 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1999). We also find no merit in Miller’s argument that the trial court’s designation of him as a PRR and sentence under the Act for burglary, along with the trial court’s designation of him as an HFO and sentences under the habitual felony offender statute for two counts of dealing in stolen property, all concurrently imposed, violate double jeopardy principles. Notably, the trial court did not sentence Miller as both a PRR and an HFO on each count, as was the case in Adams v. State, 750 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
We further conclude that Miller’s final argument, dealing with the interpretation of section 775.082(8)(a)1.q., Florida Statutes (1997), was not properly raised before the trial court and, because it does not constitute fundamental error, may not be raised for the first time on appeal. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1999); Fla. R.App. P. 9.140. We therefore affirm appellant’s convictions but, as in Woods, we certify the following question as one of great public importance:
DOES THE PRISON RELEASEE REOFFENDER PUNISHMENT ACT, CODIFIED AS SECTION 775.082(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1997), VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CLAUSE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS, MINER and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Durr v. State, 773 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…99) (holding that the Act does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, the single subject requirement, substantive due process, procedural due process, or the equal protection clause), rev. granted, 761 So. 2d 331 (Fla.2000); Miller v. State, 751 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA) (holding that the Act is not void for vagueness, does not violate the separation of powers doctrine [*647] or the single subject rule, and does not violate the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection), rev. gra…
-
Bloodworth v. State, 754 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…se from prison. It is undisputed that Bloodworth qualifies as both an habitual violent offender and a prison releasee reoffender. . We also observe that Bloodworth's sentence on count two must be affirmed pursuant to our opinion in Miller v. State, 751 So. 2d 115, (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We said in Miller: We also find no merit in Miller's argument that the trial court's designation of him as a PRR and sentence under the Act for burglary, along with the trial court's designation of him as an HFO and sentences…
-
Harrison Lee Finley v. State, 765 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…iolate double jeopardy proscriptions and, accordingly, we affirm. See Barge v. State, 763 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Bloodworth v. State, 754 So. 2d 894. (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Smith v. State, 754 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Miller v. State, 751 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted, 761 So. 2d 330 (Fla.2000). We certify conflict with Lewis v. State, 751 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), and Adams v. State, 750 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). JOANOS, LAWRENCE AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Pollock v. Couffer, 750 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Mundy v. State, 745 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Lamarian Jackson v. State, 744 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)