LEONARDO GONZALES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Leonardo Gonzales appeals his sentence under Florida's Prison Release Reoffender Punishment Act, challenging its constitutionality on ex post facto and separation of powers grounds. The Third District Court of Appeal affirms the sentence and certifies a question of great public importance regarding the statute's constitutionality.
The court holds that the statute does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because the relevant date for constitutional analysis is the date of the crime, not the date of prior release, and Gonzales committed his crime after the statute's effective date. The court also rejects the separation of powers challenge based on McKnight v. State.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act applies to a defendant if the crime for which the defendant pled guilty was committed after the effective date of the statut…
[2] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act does not violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution.
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 intelligence“The relevant date is the date of the crime for which the defendant pled guilty. Since defendant committed his crime after the effective date of the statute, the statute applies to him and there is no ex post facto violation.”
Establishes the court's holding that ex post facto analysis turns on when the crime was committed, not when prior incarceration ended
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGonzales was sentenced under the Prison Release Reoffender Punishment Act (§ 775.082(8)(a), Fla. Stat.) pursuant to a written plea agreement in circui…
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 Ex Post Facto Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders1 proceeding, Leonardo Gonzales appeals after imposition of judgment and sentence pursuant to a written plea agreement. In circuit court case number 97-332, defendant-appellant Morales was sentenced under the Prison Release Reoffender Punishment Act. See § 775.082(8)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997); ch. 97-239, §§ 1-3, Laws of Fla. In his pro se brief, defendant contends that the Act is unconstitutional. First, he contends that, as applied to him, the statute amounts to an ex post facto law because defendant had been released from prison prior to the May 30, 1997, effective date of the statute. Defendant’s argument is misplaced. The relevant date is the date of the crime for which the defendant pled guilty. Since defendant committed his crime after the effective date of the statute, the statute applies to him and there is no ex post facto violation. See Young v. State, 719 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So. 2d 915 (Fla.1999); Plain v. State, 720 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So. 2d 909 (Fla.1999); Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Defendant also contends that the statute is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution. We reject that argument on authority of McKnight v. State, 727 So. 2d 314, 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), review granted, 740 So. 2d 528 (Fla.1999). We certify that we have passed on the following question of great public importance:
DOES THE PRISON RELEASEE REOFFENDER PUNISHMENT ACT, CODIFIED AS SECTION 775.082(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1997), VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CLAUSE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
Affirmed; question certified.2
. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
. The same question has been certified in other cases. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 729 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), review granted, No. 95,604, 741 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. Sept. 2, 1999); Cook v. State, 737 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Simmons v. State, 755 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Durden v. State, 743 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Reyes v. State, 742 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Gray v. State, 742 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)…pecially)(observing that a “recent amendment to the statute nullifies our reading of the statute in State v. Wise ”)(citing Ch. 99-188, Laws of Fla. (1998 Supp.)). . The same question has been certified in other cases. See, e.g., Gonzales v. State, 762 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Richardson v. State, 748 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Simmons v. State, 755 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). . As observed by the First District in the Woods opinion: Because we conclude that the language of the Act is clear…
-
Gonzales v. State, 766 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…sentenced him pursuant to this section to fifteen years in state prison in case number 97-332, with a concurrent sixty month term in case number 97-285. Subsequently, this court affirmed the defendant’s judgment and sentence. See Gonzales v. State, 762 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), approved, 763 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2000). In his motion to withdraw plea, the defendant contends, in pertinent part, that he did not fully understand the consequences of his negotiated guilty plea where “the prosecutor ... improperl…
-
Gonzales v. State, 763 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review the decision in Gonzales v. State, 762 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in which the district court certified the same question of great public importance which was certified in Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999): DOES THE PRISON RELEASEE REOFFENDER PUNISHMENT ACT, CODIFIED AS SECTION…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d 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)
- Durden v. State, 743 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Simmons v. State, 755 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Holley v. State, 742 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Hernando Cnty. v. Rodger L. Anderson and Hal K. Yeager, 737 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)