THOMAS ADAMS, 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 reviewed Thomas Adams's challenge to his sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding that Adams's various constitutional challenges to the Act had all been previously addressed and rejected in prior Florida Supreme Court decisions.
The Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that all of Adams's challenges had been previously addressed and rejected in Grant v. State, State v. Cotton, McKnight v. State, and Ellis v. State. The Court confirmed that the Act does not violate ex post facto, equal protection, or double jeopardy principles; does not violate separation of powers; is not void for vagueness; and defendants have the right to present evidence regarding their eligibility for sentencing under the Act.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act has been upheld against challenges based on ex post facto clauses, the single subject rule, equal protection, and double jeopardy.
[2] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate separation of powers principles.
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“The petitioner challenges his sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (the "Act") on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by this Court.”
Establishes that all of Adams's constitutional challenges were previously decided by the Florida Supreme Court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams was sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. He challenged his sentencing on multiple constitutional grounds, including ex post facto…
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 Adams v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D758, — So. 2d —, 2000 WL 296526 (Fla. 1st DCA March 23, 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The petitioner challenges his sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (the “Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by 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 does not violate the single subject rule for legislation, nor does it violate principles of equal protection or subject defendants sentenced under it to double jeopardy); State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000) (holding that the Act does not violate separation of powers, does not allow a “victim veto” which would preclude application of the Act and violate due process principles, while also holding that the Act is not void for vagueness); 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); Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla.2000) (recognizing that publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions). Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court to the extent that it is consistent with Grant, McKnight, Cotton, and Ellis.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents.
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)
- Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2000)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2000)