MICKEY PALMIERI, 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.
Florida Supreme Court approved the Second District Court of Appeal's decision upholding Palmieri's sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, rejecting constitutional challenges previously resolved in Grant v. State and State v. Cotton.
The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate ex post facto, single subject, equal protection, separation of powers, due process, vagueness, or cruel and unusual punishment principles.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws, single subject legislation, equal protection, separation of po…
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 intelligencePalmieri was sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and challenged his sentence on multiple constitutional grounds.…
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 Victim Veto cases and more on FLexlaw
LEWIS, J.
We have for review the decision in Palmieri v. State, 745 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which certified conflict with the opinions in McKnight v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), approved, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.2000), and Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), approved sub nom. State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Palmieri challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act1 (“the Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by previous opinions of this Court. See Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to the Act and holding that the Act violates neither the single subject rule for legislation nor principles of equal protection); State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000) (holding that the Act violates neither separation of powers nor principles of due process by allowing a “victim veto” that precludes application of the Act, as well as holding that the Act is not void for vagueness and does not constitute a form of cruel or unusual punishment). Accordingly, the decision in Palmieri is approved to the extent that it is consistent with our opinions in Grant and Cotton.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.
. See § 775.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997).
QUINCE, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345, 358-59 (Fla.2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2000)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Mickey Palmieri v. State, 745 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- In the Interest of S.E.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 745 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)