WAHILL SALEH HACK, 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 approved the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in Hack v. State challenging a five-year prison sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, to the extent that decision was consistent with the Court's concurrent decisions in Cotton, Ellis, McKnight, and Grant, which comprehensively addressed and rejected various constitutional challenges to the Act.
All of Hack's constitutional challenges to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act are rejected. The Act does not violate the ex post facto clause, equal protection, the single subject rule, separation of powers, due process, or constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The Act's victim veto provision is constitutional, and the Act is not void for vagueness.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate ex post facto principles, the single subject rule, or equal protection.
[2] 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 of elig…
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“We have for review Hack v. State, 733 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)”
Establishes the basis for jurisdiction—direct conflict between 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 intelligenceHack received a five-year prison sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. He challenged this sentence on multiple grounds, including ex post…
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 Hack v. State, 733 So. 2d 598 (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. Hack 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 other opinions of this Court. See Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to the Act and holding that the Act violates neither the single subject rule for legislation nor principles of equal protection ); 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 reoffen-der); State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000) (holding that the Act violates neither separation of powers nor principles 'of due process by allowing a “victim veto” that precludes application of the Act, as well as holding that the Act is not void for vagueness and does not constitute a form of cruel or unusual punishment); Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912-912 (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)). Accordingly, the decision in Hack 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. Stat. (1997).
. In its decision in Hack, the Fifth District cited to its decision in Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), approved, 779 So. 2d 265 (Fla.2001). In our decision in Cotton, we disapproved the opinion in Speed to the extent that it implied, in dicta, that a subsection of the Act gives to each victim a veto over the imposition of the mandatory sentences that are prescribed in other parts of the Act.
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)
- Wahill Saleh Hack v. State, 733 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Speed v. State, 779 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2001)