PHILLIP FREDERICK TAYLOR, 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.
Florida Supreme Court affirmed the First District Court of Appeal's decision upholding Taylor's sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, rejecting constitutional challenges including ex post facto, equal protection, double jeopardy, separation of powers, vagueness, and due process claims.
The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate the ex post facto clause, single subject rule, equal protection, double jeopardy, separation of powers, due process, or vagueness doctrines, and defendants have the right to present evidence and challenge their eligibility for sentencing under the Act.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate the ex post facto clause, single subject rule, equal protection, double jeopardy, separation of powers, vagueness, or…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillip Frederick Taylor was sentenced under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and challenged his sentencing on multiple constitutional grounds…
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 Void For Vagueness Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Taylor v. State, 755 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), 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 and 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)
- Taylor v. State, 755 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)