LARRY CARL COOK, 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 in Cook v. State, which challenged the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act on multiple constitutional grounds. The Court held that all of Cook's challenges had been previously addressed and rejected in recent precedent, including in State v. Cotton, and therefore affirmed the decision as consistent with Cotton, Ellis, McKnight, and Grant.
The Court held that all of Cook's challenges to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act have been previously addressed and rejected. The Act does not violate separation of powers, due process, the single subject rule, equal protection, or constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Defendants have the right to present evidence regarding their eligibility under the Act and to challenge the State's evidence.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate ex post facto principles, the single subject rule, or equal protection.
[2] 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…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes that Cook's claims were not novel and had been previously decided.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLarry Carl Cook was sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes). Cook challenged his sentence on several…
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 Cook v. State, 737 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), in which the Fifth District certified the same question that was certified in Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), approved sub nom. State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000).1 We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Cook challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act2 (“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); 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); Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912, 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)). Accordingly, the decision in Cook is approved to the extent it is consistent with Cotton,3 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.
. As framed in Woods, that question is:
DOES THE PRISON RELEASEE REOF-FENDER PUNISHMENT ACT, CODIFIED AS SECTION 775.082(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1997), VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CLAUSE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
. See § 775.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997).
. In its decision in Cook, the Fifth District cited to its decision in Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), approved, 779 So. 2d 265 (Fla.2001). In our decision in Cotton, we disapproved the opinion in Speed to the extent that it 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
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- 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)
- Speed v. State, 779 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2001)
- 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)