JOHN W. ELLIS, 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 quashed the Second District's decision insofar as it construed the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act inconsistently with the Court's prior decision in State v. Cotton, and approved the Second District's rejection of the petitioner's notice challenge.
The Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act, as interpreted in State v. Cotton, does not violate separation of powers, and constructive notice through publication in the Laws of Florida satisfies statutory notice requirements.
[1] Publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes provides constructive notice of the consequences of actions and satisfies statutory notice requirements.
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 intelligenceJohn W. Ellis challenged the constitutionality of the Prisoner Releasee Reoffender Act, raising separation of powers and statutory notice requirement …
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 Certification Of Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the decision in Ellis v. State, 740 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), in which the Second District certified conflict with Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st 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 Prisoner 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 Second District’s decision in this case to the extent that it may be interpreted as construing the Act in a manner which is inconsistent with our decision in Cotton. We approve the Second District’s rejection of petitioner’s challenge to the Act based upon the lack of a statutory notice requirement. See State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139, 142 (Fla.1991) (observing that, “[a]s to notice, publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions”). We decline to address the other issues raised in this case. See Heuss v. State, 687 So. 2d 823, 824 (Fla.1996).
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, 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 (103 total)
-
McKNIGHT v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2000)…. 2d 345 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently held that the Prisoner Re-leasee Reoffender Act does not violate separation of powers, and rejected other constitutional challenges to the Act. See Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla.2000); State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000). Accordingly, we similarly approve the Third District’s decision in this case, to the extent that it is consistent with our Cotton1 and Ellis opinions. It is so ordered. [*1040] WELLS, C.J, and…
-
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2005)…he bond should be construed in light of the statute.” Fuller Indus., Inc. v. R. Terry Blazier & Son, Inc., 188 So. 2d 2, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). More generally, the public is on constructive notice of statutory requirements. See, e.g., Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912, 912 (Fla.2000) (recognizing that publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions); In re Will of Martell, 457 So. 2d 1064, 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (recognizing t…
-
Knight v. State, 808 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2002)…ffense occurred on August 23, 1998, his prison releasee reoffender sentence is controlled by the 1997 Florida Statutes, and we therefore revise the certified question to involve section 775.082(8)(a)2.a., Florida Statutes (1997). Cf. Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla.2000) (stating that the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes give citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions, including the Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) act). The section of the PRR act that is at issue in this cas…
Previewing 3 of 103 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1991)
- Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Heuss v. State, 687 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1996)
- Ellis v. State, 740 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)