XAVIER JOE WILLIAMS, 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.
The court held that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act is constitutional, but its application violates the ex post facto clause when the qualifying events occurred before the Act's effective date.
[1] Application of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act is constitutional when challenged on separation of powers grounds.
[2] Application of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act violates the ex post facto clause when both the qualifying release date and the new offenses occur before the Act's effe…
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 intelligenceAppellant challenged the constitutionality of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. In two cases, the qualifying events occurred before the Act's effect…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender Act cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
In these three consolidated cases, appellant challenges the constitutionality of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997).
Since this court has found the Act constitutional in the face of a separation of powers challenge, we affirm and certify conflict in No. 98-00534, as we did in Ellis v. State, 740 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) and State v. Cowart, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1085, — So. 2d -, 1999 WL 245876 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr.28, 1999), with McKnight v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) and Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
However, we conclude that application of the Act to appellant in the other two cases, Nos. 98-00522 and 98-00524, would be a violation of the ex post facto clause because the “qualifying events” for purposes of the statute occurred before the Act became effective. Appellant was released from prison on January 5, 1996, before the May 30, 1997 effective date of the Act. He committed his new offenses in these two cases on May 5, 1997, again before the May 30, 1997 effective date of the Act. In Arnold v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1834, — So. 2d -, 1999 WL 565862 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug.4, 1999), the Fourth District concluded that where both the prison release date and the new offenses occurred before the effective date of the Act, application of the Act is an improper retrospective ex post facto violation.
This is not true in No. 98-00534, because appellant committed the offenses in that ease on June 30, 1997, after the May 30, 1997 effective date of the Act. See Arnold; Plain v. State, 720 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So. 2d 909 (Fla.1999); Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So. 2d 915 (Fla.1999). Accordingly, the court was correct in applying the Act to appellant in No. 98-00534.
We affirm and certify in No. 98-00534. We vacate appellant’s sentence in Nos. 98-00522 and 98-00524 and remand for resentencing "in accordance with the guidelines.
WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Verro Chambers v. State, 752 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…violate ex post facto principles if the “qualifying events” for purposes of the statute occurred before the act became effective, i.e., if the accused committed new offenses before the May 30, 1997, effective date of the Act. See Williams v. State, 743 So. 2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Such is not the case here. Appellant stipulated that his release from prison in 1996, and the commission of a new offense in July 1998, were “qualifying events” for purposes of the prison releasee reoffender statute. Accor…
-
Jefferson v. State, 777 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…n case number 97-4125, this would be an illegal sentence. According to Jefferson, the offense in 97-4125 was committed on May 20, 1997, which was ten days before the Prison Re-leasee Reoffender Punishment Act became effective. See Williams v. State, 743 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that it was an ex post facto violation to impose a prison releasee reoffender sentence on offenses committed prior to the effective date of the act, which was May 30, 1997). Furthermore, the offense of attempted felon in…
-
Mobley v. State, 765 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ment. See Turner, supra; Woods, supra. The Act is not an ex post facto law because Appellant committed his new offenses after the Act’s May 30, 1997, effective date. See Chambers v. State, 752 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (citing Williams v. State, 743 So. 2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)). We REVERSE and REMAND the judgment and sentence from counts III and IV for resentencing as a prison releasee reof-fender. As to all other issues, we AFFIRM but CERTIFY the above-stated question as one of great public impor…
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)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Plain v. State, 720 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Barfield v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Ellis v. State, 740 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)