JAMES K. SMITH, 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.
Smith petitioned for review of his sentence under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, challenging its constitutionality and application. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that all of Smith's challenges had been previously addressed and rejected in prior cases establishing that the Act does not violate ex post facto principles, equal protection, due process, or constitutional vagueness requirements.
The Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate ex post facto principles, the single subject rule, equal protection, due process rights, vagueness doctrine, or constitute cruel or unusual punishment. The Court found that constructive notice of the Act's consequences is provided through publication in Florida law.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate the single subject rule for legislation.
[2] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate principles of equal protection.
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“Smith challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (the "Act") on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by this Court.”
Establishes that Smith's constitutional challenges are not novel and have been previously resolved in prior cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act. The specific facts regarding Smith's crime, prior record, or sentence details are not pr…
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 Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Smith challenges his sentence 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 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 does not permit a “victim veto” which would violate a defendant’s due process rights by precluding application of the Act in some instances but not others, 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 189, 142 (Fla.1991)). Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court to the extent 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)
- Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)