Clark v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Clark v. State

761 So. 2d 323, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 498, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1264, 2000 WL 796087

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 2000

DocketNo. SC95864

StatusPublished

This text of 761 So. 2d 323 (Clark v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. State, 761 So. 2d 323, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 498, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1264, 2000 WL 796087 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision in Clark v. State, 732 So.2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), in which the district court affirmed the lower court’s imposition of sentence pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffen-der Act, (section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997)(the “Act”), relying on the decision in McKnight v. State, 727 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)), which expressly and directly conflicts with State v. Cotton, 728 So.2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We recently held that the Prisoner Re-leasee Reoffender Act does not violate separation of powers, and rejected other constitutional challenges to the Act. See State v. Cotton, SC94996 & SC95281, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000). Accordingly, we similarly approve the Fifth District’s decision in this case.

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision in Clark v. State, 732 So.2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), in which the district court affirmed the lower court’s imposition of sentence pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffen-der Act, (section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997)(the “Act”), relying on the decision in McKnight v. State, 727 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)), which expressly and directly conflicts with State v. Cotton, 728 So.2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We recently held that the Prisoner Re-leasee Reoffender Act does not violate separation of powers, and rejected other constitutional challenges to the Act. See State v. Cotton, SC94996 & SC95281, - So.2d -, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000). Accordingly, we similarly approve the Fifth District’s decision in this case.

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

761 So. 2d 323, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 498, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1264, 2000 WL 796087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-state-fla-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack