ANDREA SMITH, 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.
Andrea Smith appeals her 15-year mandatory sentence under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, arguing the trial judge erred in finding sentencing mandatory despite the victim's written request for leniency. The court rejected Smith's constitutional challenges but agreed that the victim's letter requesting leniency gave the trial judge discretion to sentence outside the Act.
The court rejected all constitutional challenges to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act but agreed that the victim's written statement seeking leniency gave the trial judge discretion to sentence Smith outside the provisions of the Act rather than mandatorily under it.
[1] A trial court errs in concluding that sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act is mandatory when the victim submits a letter requesting leniency.
[2] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“In view of the victim's written statement seeking leniency, we agree with Smith's argument that the trial judge erred in concluding that she had no discretion to sentence Smith outside of the provisions of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act.”
Establishes that the victim's request for leniency gave the trial judge discretion despite the Act's mandatory language
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrea Smith was sentenced to fifteen years in prison pursuant to Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (section 775.082(8)(a)1). The victim submit…
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 Void For Vagueness Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Andrea Smith, appeals his sentence of fifteen years in state prison pursuant to section 775.082(8)(a)l., Florida Statutes (1997), the Prison Releasee Reof-fender Act, on the grounds 1) that the trial judge erred in determining that sentencing under the Act was mandatory when the victim submits a letter to the judge requesting that the defendant is not sentenced under the Act, and 2) that the Act is unconstitutional because it violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws, violates the separation of powers doctrine, violates the single-subject rule, violates the equal protection clause, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, violates substantive due process rights, and that the exceptions to sentencing under the Act provided in section 775.082(8)(d)l. are void for vagueness. We previously addressed and rejected Smith’s arguments that the Act violates the prohibition against ex post fac-to laws and the single-subject rule. See Plain v. State, 720 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 727 So. 2d 909 (Fla.1999); Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 727 So. 2d 915 (Fla.1999). We, likewise, reject each of the other constitutional challenges raised by Smith. See Jennings v. State, 744 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
In view of the victim’s written statement seeking leniency, we agree with Smith’s argument that the trial judge erred in concluding that she had no discretion to sentence Smith outside of the provisions of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. See State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. granted, 741 So. 2d 1137 (Fla.1999).1 The trial judge indicated on the record that, if she had discretion in the matter, she would not sentence Smith under the Act. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial judge to determine whether to impose a sentence under the Act or under the sentencing guidelines in light of our ruling in Wise.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WARNER, C.J., FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur. . As we did in Wise, we certify conflict with McKnight v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. granted, 740 So. 2d 528 (Fla.1999).
. Of course, on remand, the trial judge will not be bound by her earlier preliminary indications that she would not be inclined to sentence Smith under the Act.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Verro Chambers v. State, 752 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…wers doctrine were addressed and rejected by this court in Woods. See also Reyes v. State, 742 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Jennings v. State, 744 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In Woods and Reyes, this court certified the question whether the prison releasee reoffender punishment act violates the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution. In August 1999, the supreme court granted review…1 / 2
-
Lenard Philmore v. State, 760 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…n occupied structure with a firearm. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Philmore’s motion to suppress and affirm his sentences under section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997), which this court has found to be constitutional. See Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Adams v. State, 750 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), review granted, No. SC96713, 761 So. 2d 331 (Fla. Apr.12, 2000); Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), re…
-
Brown v. State, 756 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Simmons v. State, 755 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. granted, 751 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.2000); Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 727 So. 2d…
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
- McKNIGHT v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th 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)
- Jennings v. State, 744 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)