STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
BURTHLAND FORDE, 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.
Florida Supreme Court quashed the Second District's decision invalidating the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and remanded for proceedings consistent with Cotton, holding the Act constitutional, but allowed the respondent to withdraw his guilty plea because he relied on the trial court's representation that he would not be sentenced under the Act.
The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate separation of powers or other constitutional provisions, and a defendant who entered a guilty plea based on the trial court's representation that he would not be sentenced under the Act may withdraw that plea upon remand.
[1] A defendant who enters a guilty plea based on a trial court's representation that he will not be sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act may withdraw that plea…
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 intelligenceBurthland Forde entered a guilty plea based on the trial court's indication that he would not be sentenced pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender …
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
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the decision in State v. Forde, 742 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which the district court certified to be in conflict with the opinion in Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and McKnight v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently approved the First District’s decision in Woods, holding that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, as properly interpreted by the First District, does not violate separation of powers, and rejecting other constitutional challenges to the Act. See State v. Cotton, SC94996 & SC95281, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000). Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Cotton, we quash the decision of the appellate court herein, and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Cotton. Because it appears that the respondent entered a plea of guilty based upon the trial court’s indication that respondent, upon such plea, would not be sentenced pursuant to the Act, upon remand to the trial court, respondent shall have the right to withdraw his guilty plea.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.
QUINCE, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Cotton, Nos. SC94996 & SC95281, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- State v. Burthland Forde, 742 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- State v. Damico, 742 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)