COREY DOUGLAS WHEATON, 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 First District Court of Appeal's decision upholding Corey Douglas Wheaton's conviction and life sentence as a prison releasee reoffender under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act. The Court rejected Wheaton's constitutional challenges to the Act, finding it does not violate separation of powers, due process, or other constitutional protections.
The Act does not violate the separation of powers clause or any other constitutional provision challenged by Wheaton. The Court affirmed the constitutional validity of the Act based on prior precedent addressing ex post facto concerns, equal protection, single subject rule compliance, due process, vagueness, and cruel and unusual punishment.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act does not violate the separation of powers clause of the Florida Constitution.
[2] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto that precludes application of the Act.
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“Petitioner Corey Douglas Wheaton was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment as a violent career criminal and a prison releasee reoffender.”
Establishes the nature of Wheaton's conviction and sentence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCorey Douglas Wheaton was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act as both a …
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
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the decision in Wheaton v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2466, — So. 2d —, 1999 WL 965484 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct.25, 1999), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the same question as it 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. Petitioner Corey Douglas Wheaton was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment as a violent career criminal and a prison releasee reoffender. On appeal, his conviction and sentence were affirmed. Seeking review, Wheaton challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act (“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); Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 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)); 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). Accordingly, we approve the First District’s decision on this issue.2
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and LEWIS, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents.
. The question certified 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?
. We decline to address the other issue raised by Wheaton because it was not the basis for our review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McLEAN v. State, 934 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2006)…ting Mark A. Sheft, Federal Rule of Evidence 413: A Dangerous New Frontier, 33 Am.Crim. L.Rev. 57, 59 n. 6 (1995)). . We decline to address the other issues raised by McLean that are beyond the scope of the certified question. See Wheaton v. State, 789 So. 2d 975, 975 n. 2 (Fla.2001) (declining to address an issue raised that was beyond the scope of the certified question).…
-
Cardenas v. State, 867 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2004)…would not be fundamental error, citing to the First District decisions in Cardenas and Leveritt. See id. . We decline to address the additional issues raised by the parties that are beyond the scope of the certified question. See Wheaton v. State, 789 So. 2d 975, 975 n. 2 (Fla.2001); McMullen v. State, 714 So. 2d 368, 373 (Fla. 1998).…
-
State v. Ruiz, 863 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2003)…etween cases on collateral [*1212] review and those in the "pipeline.'' See 598 So. 2d at 1066 n. 5. . We decline to address the additional issues raised by Braggs and Ruiz that are beyond the scope of the certified question. See Whea-ton v. State, 789 So. 2d 975, 975 n. 2 (Fla. 2001); McMullen v. State, 714 So. 2d 368, 373 (Fla.1998).…
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)