GERALD L. BEDFORD, 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 Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision upholding Gerald Bedford's sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, rejecting his challenges to the Act's constitutionality and his eligibility for sentencing under its provisions.
The Court approved the Fifth District's decision, holding that the Act does not violate separation of powers or due process, is not void for vagueness, and does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The Court also confirmed that defendants have the right to present evidence of non-eligibility and to challenge the State's evidence regarding eligibility for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender.
[1] A defendant has the right to present evidence to prove ineligibility for sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and to challenge the State's evidence of elig…
[2] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate separation of powers or due process principles by allowing a "victim veto" that precludes its application.
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“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 the procedural rights of defendants in sentencing hearings under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBedford was sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. He challenged his sentence on multiple grounds, including claims that the Act violated…
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 Bedford v. State, 747 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), which certified conflict with the opinions in State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), quashed, 762 So. 2d 528 (Fla.2000), and State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), quashed, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Bedford challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act1 (the “Act”) on grounds which have been addressed by previous 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); 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).2 Accordingly, we approve the decision in Bedford.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ, concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.
. See § 775.082(9), Fla. Slat. (Supp.1998).
. In its decision in Bedford, the Fifth District cited to its decision in Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), approved, No. SC95706, 779 So. 2d 265 (Fla.2001), and certified conflict with the decisions in State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), quashed, 762 So. 2d 523 (Fla.2000), and State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), quashed, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000). In our decision in Cotton, we disapproved the opinions in Speed and Wise to the extent that they implied, in dicta, that a subsection of the Act gives to each victim a veto over the imposition of the mandatory sentences that are prescribed in other parts of the Act.
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
Cited By
-
Sarina Maria Hines v. Whataburger Rests. LLC, 301 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…within 180 days of filing regarding the status of their claims. Id. at 439 (emphasis in original). Many courts in Florida have applied the four-year statute of limitations exception created by Joshua. See Ellsworth v. Polk Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 780 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2001); Seale v. EMSA Corr. Care, Inc., 767 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 2000); Kintz v. Escambia Cty. Util. Auth., 795 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Williams v. Se. Fla. Cable, Inc., 782 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Dixon v. Sprint-Fla., 787 So. 2d…
-
Rhenals v. Fed. Express Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2025)…the general four-year statute of limitations, not the one-year statute of limitations, applies. See Hines, 301 So. 3d at 475 (citing Joshua City of Gainesville, 768 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 2000)); see also Ellsworth v. Polk Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 780 So. 2d 903, 905 (Fla. 2001) (“[T]he general four-year statute of limitations for statutory causes of action embodies in section 95.11(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1999), applies when the Commission fails to make a reasonable cause determination within 180 days.”).…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (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)
- Jewell F. Raimondo v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Speed v. State, 779 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2001)
- State v. Wise, 762 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2000)
- Green v. State, 762 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2000)
- Marx v. State, 762 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)