ROBERT F. MEDINA, 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 quashed the Second District's decision on whether the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act applies to burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, remanding for reconsideration under State v. Huggins, while affirming rejection of constitutional challenges to the PRRP.
The PRRP's applicability to burglary of an unoccupied dwelling must be reconsidered under State v. Huggins, and constitutional challenges to the PRRP are without merit.
[1] The Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act's applicability to burglary of an unoccupied dwelling is governed by the principles established in State v. …
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 intelligenceRobert Medina challenged his conviction under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act, raising questions about whether the Act applies to burgla…
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 Constitutional Challenge To Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, J.
We have for review the decision in Medina v. State, 758 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), which certified conflict with the decision in State v. Huggins, 744 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), approved, 802 So .2d 276 (Fla.2001). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Robert Medina raises two issues before this Court. First, he argues that the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act (PRRP) cannot be applied to the crime of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. On this issue we quash the decision of the Second District and remand for reconsideration upon application of our decision in State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla.2001).
The second issue involves various constitutional challenges to the PRRP.1 The Second District denied the constitutional challenges and held that all of these issues have been resolved, citing Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), approved in part and quashed in part, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000). As to the constitutional challenges, we approve the decision of the Second District based on our decisions in Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000), and State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.2000).
It is so ordered.
SHAW, ANSTEAD, HARDING and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. LEWIS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which WELLS, C.J., concurs.
. The various constitutional challenges are: the PRRP violates the single subject rule, violates separation of powers, imposes cruel and unusual punishment, is void for vagueness, violates due process, violates equal protection, and is overbroad.
LEWIS, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that the PRRP is constitutional. However, with respect to the question of whether burglary of a dwelling, whether occupied or not, qualifies the defendant for prison releasee reoffender sentencing, I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion, and for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Wells, in State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla.2001).
WELLS, C.J., concurs.
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)
- State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2001)
- State v. Huggins, 744 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Ames v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Medina v. State, 758 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)