STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
FRANK WISE, 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 Fourth District's decision invalidating the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and remanded for resentencing, but allowed the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea because he entered it with the understanding 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 pleaded guilty with the understanding he would not be sentenced under the Act may withdraw that plea upon remand.
[1] A defendant who enters a guilty plea with the explicit understanding that he will not be sentenced under a particular statute may withdraw that plea if the statute is sub…
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 intelligence“Because it appears that the respondent entered a plea of guilty with the understanding 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.”
The Court's disposition regarding the defendant's ability to withdraw his guilty plea based on the changed legal landscape.
Frank Wise entered a guilty plea with the understanding that he would not be sentenced pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act.…
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
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the decision in State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), which the district court certified to be in conflict with the opinion of the Third District in McKnight v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in which the Third District had, in turn, certified conflict with State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently quashed the Second District’s decision in Cotton, and approved the First District’s decision in Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), 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, Nos. SC94996 & SC95281, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000). Accordingly, for -the reasons expressed in Cotton, we quash the Fourth District’s decision in this case, and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Cotton. Because it appears that the respondent entered a plea of guilty with the understanding 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
Cited By
-
Rollinson v. State, 778 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2001)…JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion. . See § 775.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997). . We also note that in its decision in Rollin-son, the Fourth District cited to its decision in State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), quashed, 762 So. 2d 523 (Fla.2000). In our opinion in Cotton, we disapproved of the decision in Wise to the extent that it was inconsistent with Cotton.…
-
Ross v. State, 770 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…atute. See § 775.082(8)(a)l(1997).1 On appeal, the state argues that the court was under the belief that it possessed the discretion to refuse to impose a prison releasee reoffen-der under State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), quashed, 762 So. 2d 523 (Fla.2000). Appellant acknowledges that a conflict exists among the district courts of appeal regarding a prosecutor’s discretion to request that a defendant be sentenced as a prison releasee reoffender and concedes that a resolution of that confli…1 / 2
-
Bedford v. State, 780 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2001)…he Fifth District cited to its decision in Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), approved, No. SC95706, 779 So. 2d 265 (Fla.2001), and certified conflict with the decisions in State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), quashed, 762 So. 2d 523 (Fla.2000), and State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), quashed, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000). In our decision in Cotton, we disapproved the opinions in Speed and Wise to the extent that they implied, in dicta, that a subsection of the Act…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th 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)