ARIC A. WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a Fifth District Court of Appeal decision upholding Williams' five-year prison sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. The Court approved the lower court's decision to the extent it was consistent with the Court's precedent in Cotton, Ellis, McKnight, and Grant, rejecting various constitutional challenges to the Act.
The Court approved the district court's affirmance of Williams' sentence to the extent it was consistent with the Court's precedent. The Court rejected all constitutional challenges to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, holding that it does not violate ex post facto principles, separation of powers, due process, vagueness, or equal protection, and that the Act does not constitute double jeopardy.
[1] A defendant has the right to present evidence to prove ineligibility for sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and to challenge the State's evidence regardi…
[2] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate ex post facto principles, the single subject rule, equal protection, or double jeopardy.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 for review Williams v. State, 738 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), quashed, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000).”
Establishes the jurisdictional basis for Supreme Court review based on conflicting district court decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was sentenced to five years in prison under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. He challenged his sentence on multiple constitutional grounds…
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 Victim Veto cases and more on FLexlaw
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Williams v. State, 738 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), quashed, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Williams challenges his five-year prison sentence under the Prison Releasee Reof-fender Act1 (the “Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by this Court in other opinions. See McKnight v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.2000) (holding that a defendant has the right both to present evidence to prove that the defendant does not qualify for sentencing under the Act, and to challenge the State’s evidence regarding the defendant’s eligibility for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender); Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to the Act and holding that the Act does not violate the single subject rule for legislation, nor does it violate principles of equal protection or subject defendants sentenced under it to double jeopardy); Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla.2000) (recognizing that, “[a]s to notice, publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions”) (quoting State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139, 142 (Fla.1991)); State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000) (holding that the Act does not violate separation of powers, is not void for vagueness, and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a “victim veto” precluding application of the Act). Accordingly, the decision in Williams is approved to the extent it is consistent with Cotton,
Ellis, McKnight, and Grant.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.
. See § 775.082(8), Fla. Slat. (1997).
. The district court, in affirming Williams' sentence, cites to Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 743 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1999). In Cotton, we disapproved the decision in Speed to the extent that it was inconsistent with our opinion in Cotton.
QUINCE, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345, 358-59 (Fla.2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1991)
- Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2000)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2000)
- Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Jewell F. Raimondo v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Aric A. Williams v. State, 738 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)