ENNIO FORESTA, 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 held that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act does not violate the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution, and clarified that the Act's applicability to burglary of an unoccupied dwelling must be determined under State v. Huggins.
The Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act, codified as section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes, does not violate the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act does not violate the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEnnio Foresta challenged the constitutionality of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act, and the First District Court of Appeal certified the …
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 Constitutional Challenge To Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, J.
We have for review a decision on the following question certified by the First District Court of Appeal to be 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 v. State, 751 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons set forth in Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000), and State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000), we answer the certified question in the negative.
The First District also certified conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in State v. Huggins, 744 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), approved, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla.2001), on the issue of whether the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act is applicable to a conviction for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. We have jurisdiction to review this issue as well. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. On this issue, we quash the decision of the First District and remand for reconsideration upon application of our de cision in State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla.2001).
It is so ordered.
SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. LEWIS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which WELLS, C.J., concurs.
LEWIS, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that the PRRP is constitutional. However, with respect to the question of whether burglary of a dwelling, whether occupied or not, qualifies the defendant for prison releasee reoffender sentencing, I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion, and for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Wells, in State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla.2001).
WELLS, C.J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 65 So. 3d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…, 111 Ind. 59, 12 N.E. 98, 99 (1887)). To further that purpose, lawyers “are entitled to ask, and receive truthful and complete responses to, the relevant questions which they pose to prospective jurors.” Roberts ex rel. Estate of Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So. 2d 384, 342 (Fla.2002). “ ‘A juror who ... conceals a material fact relevant to the controversy [ ] is guilty of misconduct, and such misconduct [] is prejudicial to the party, for it impairs his right to challenge.’ ” Loftin, 67 So. 2d at 192 (quoting Pea…
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2001)
- State v. Huggins, 744 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Newcomb v. Anne Pennoyer Newcomb, 751 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)