BILLY LAMONT CULPEPPER, 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 Third District Court of Appeal's affirmance of Culpepper's sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, rejecting constitutional challenges previously resolved in related cases.
The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate ex post facto, single subject, equal protection, due process, vagueness, or cruel and unusual punishment principles, and defendants have the right to present evidence and challenge their eligibility.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act does not violate ex post facto, single subject, equal protection, due process, vagueness, or cruel and unusual punishment principles, a…
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 intelligenceCulpepper was sentenced under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act and challenged his sentencing on 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 Ex Post Facto Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
LEWIS, J.
We have for review the opinion in Culpepper v. State, 757 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Culpepper challenges his sentencing under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (the “Act”) on grounds previously 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 (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)
- Culpepper v. State, 757 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Chubbuck v. State, 757 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)