WADE S. MILLER, 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 approved the decision affirming Miller's concurrent thirty-year prison sentences imposed under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, finding that all of Miller's constitutional challenges had been previously addressed and rejected in related cases.
Miller's challenges to his sentences under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act are rejected. The Court approved the district court's decision to the extent it was consistent with prior Supreme Court decisions in Cotton, Ellis, McKnight, and Grant, which had rejected all of Miller's substantive legal challenges.
[1] The legislature has the power to set penalties for crimes as a matter of substantive law.
[2] Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes do not violate the separation of powers doctrine.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a defendant has the right both to present evidence to prove that the defendant does not qualify for sentencing under the Act, and to challenge the State's evidence regarding the defendant's eligibility for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender”
Establishes procedural rights available to defendants challenging sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller was sentenced to concurrent thirty-year prison sentences under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed …
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 Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
LEWIS, J.
We have for review the decision in Miller v. State, 745 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which certified conflict with the decision in State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), quashed, 762 So. 2d 523 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Miller challenges his concurrent thirty-year prison sentences under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act1 (the “Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by other opinions of this Court. See McKnight v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla.2000) (holding that a defendant has the right both to present evidence to prove that the defendant does not qualify for sentencing under the Act, and to challenge the State’s evidence regarding the defendant’s eligibility for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender); Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to the Act); Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla.2000) (recognizing 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”) (quoting State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139, 142 (Fla.1991)); State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000) (holding that the Act does not violate separation of powers, is not void for vagueness, and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a “victim veto” precluding application of the Act). Accordingly, the decision in Miller is approved to the extent that it is consistent with Cotton,2 Ellis, McKnight, and Grant.
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).
. The district court affirmed Miller’s sentences on the basis of Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 743 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1999). In Cotton, we disapproved the decision in Speed to the extent that it was inconsistent with our opinion in Cotton. Moreover, the district court also certified conflict with State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), quashed, 762 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2000); in Cotton, we also disapproved the decision in Wise to the extent that it was inconsistent with the Cotton opinion.
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 (11 total)
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1991)
- Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2000)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2000)
- Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- State v. Wise, 762 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2000)
- Green v. State, 762 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2000)
- Miller v. State, 745 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)