Medina v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Medina v. State

813 So. 2d 103, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 245, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 431, 2002 WL 389932

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 2002

DocketNo. SC00-280

StatusPublished

This text of 813 So. 2d 103 (Medina 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

Medina v. State, 813 So. 2d 103, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 245, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 431, 2002 WL 389932 (Fla. 2002).

Pincite

Opinions

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

813 So. 2d 103, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 245, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 431, 2002 WL 389932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-v-state-fla-2002.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack