ROBERT JAMES KISNER, 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.
Affirmed conviction under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, certifying the separation of powers constitutional challenge to the Florida Supreme Court.
The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate separation of powers principles, and the court affirms the conviction while certifying the constitutional issue to the Florida Supreme Court.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate the separation of powers doctrine under the Florida Constitution.
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 intelligenceKisner was convicted under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act for committing a lewd and lascivious or indecent act upon a child.…
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 Due Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, J.
Robert James Kisner appeals the judgment and sentence he received under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act for committing a Lewd and Lascivious or Indecent Act Upon a Child. Kisner first argues that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997)) is unconstitutional based on a separation of powers defect. We affirm on the separation of powers argument based on Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 743 So. 2d 15 (1999). But, we certify the issue to the Florida Supreme Court as we did in Richardson v. State, 748 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), review granted, 751 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Jan.6, 2000); Robinson v. State, 742 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), review granted, Table No. SC96976, 761 So. 2d 331 (Fla. Feb. 21, 2000); Moon v. State, 737 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), review granted, 751 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.2000); Cook v. State, 737 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), review granted, Table No. SC96399, 761 So. 2d 327 (Fla. Feb 21, 2000).
Kisner’s second argument is that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act is unconstitutional because it denies due process of law. This argument was raised, sua sponte, by this Court in Speed, 732 So. 2d at 19 n. 4. While this argument has been raised by Kisner, it has not been briefed in the instant appeal. We, therefore, do not consider its validity or viability.
DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ„ concur.
PETERSON, J.
We grant the State of Florida’s motion for rehearing in which it requests that we reconsider our opinion that certified the issue of the constitutionality of the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. The Florida Supreme Court has since upheld the constitutionality of the Act. See Cotton v. State, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000).
We therefore affirm Kisner’s judgment and sentence.
MOTION GRANTED; JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Royal Mende Basel & Steven Kane as Co-Plenary Guardians of the person & Prop. of Mark Victor Basel v. McFARLAND & Sons, Inc., 815 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ctively and is inapplicable to this case.6 NEW TRIAL/ADDITUR ISSUE The trial court’s determination regarding additur may be reversed on appeal only where there is a clear abuse of discretion. Arena Parking, Inc. v. Lon Worth Crow Insurance Agency, 768 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). If an appellate court determines that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla.…
-
Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…a result of the opposing party’s failure to admit requests for admissions may not be assessed against the opposing party for denying a request to admit a hotly-contested, central issue to the case.” Arena Parking, Inc. v. Lon Worth Crow Ins. Agency, 768 So. 2d 1107, 1113 (Fla. 3d [*1024] DCA 2000). If the result were otherwise, then “where a party denies a request to admit a fact which is the central issue of fact in the case, prevailing party attorney’s fees would become the rule, rather than the exception.”…
-
Haas Automation, Inc. v. FOX, 243 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…ying which of these denials the trial court was basing its fee entitlement determination on, the trial court awarded the Foxes attorney's fees under rule 1.380(c) at the attorney's fees hearing. In Arena Parking, Inc. v. Lon Worth Crow Ins. Agency, 768 So. 2d 1107, 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), this Court recognized an important distinction between requests for admission that would resolve the ultimate issues in the case if admitted, and requests for admission that simply go to establishing a relevant fact in the…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Moon v. State, 737 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Richardson v. State, 748 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Hayes v. State, 748 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Hernando Cnty. v. Rodger L. Anderson and Hal K. Yeager, 737 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Cook v. State, 737 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Robinson v. State, 742 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Ervin v. State, 742 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)