ENNIO FORESTA, 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.
Ennio Foresta was sentenced to fifteen years as a prison releasee reoffender for burglary of a dwelling under Florida Statutes section 775.082(8). The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence and certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act violates Florida's separation of powers clause, while also resolving a conflict with the Fourth District regarding whether the statute applies to burglary of unoccupied dwellings.
The court affirmed Foresta's sentence and held that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act applies to burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. The court certified the constitutional question regarding the separation of powers clause to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance, following its prior decisions in Turner and Durden.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act applies to a sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling.
[2] A court may certify a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of a statute.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“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?”
The certified question of great public importance sent to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the constitutional validity of the statute
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceForesta was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender to fifteen years in prison under section 775.082(8), Flo…
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 Unoccupied Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWRENCE, J.
The appellant, Ennio Foresta (Foresta), was sentenced as a prison releasee reof-fender under section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997), to fifteen years in prison for burglary of a dwelling. Foresta challenges section 775.082(8) on various constitutional grounds which have been rejected by this court in Turner v. State, 745 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and Durden v. State, 743 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). In accordance with Turner and Durden, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court 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?
Foresta also argues that the Prison Re-leasee Reoffender statute, which authorizes sentencing as a prison releasee reof-fender when a defendant is convicted of “burglary of an occupied structure or dwelling[,]” section 775.082(8)(a)l.q, Florida Statutes (1997), should not apply in his case since he was convicted of the crime of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. The Second District Court of Appeal, in State v. Chamberlain, 744 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), held that “the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does apply to a sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling.” Id. at 1186 (citing State v. White, 736 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)). The Fourth District Court of Appeal, however, in State v. Huggins, 744 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), in an en banc opinion, held that “the PRR section 775.082(8)(a)(l)(q) does not apply to burglary of an unoccupied dwelling.” Id. at 1216. The Huggins court expressly receded from its holdings in Scott v. State, 721 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), State v. Litton, 736 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), and Wallace v. State, 738 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), and acknowledged conflict with the Second District Court of Appeal on this issue.
We agree with the Second District Court of Appeal and hold that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act applies to a sentence for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. We also certify conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Huggins.
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, C.J. and BROWNING, J., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Huggins, 744 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- McKinley Scott v. State, 721 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- State v. White, 736 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Durden v. State, 743 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- State v. Chamberlain, 744 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Wallace v. State, 738 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- State v. Litton, 736 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)