Palmieri v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Palmieri v. State

777 So. 2d 974, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 71, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 257, 2001 WL 101717

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedFebruary 8, 2001

DocketNo. SC97062

StatusPublished

This text of 777 So. 2d 974 (Palmieri 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

Palmieri v. State, 777 So. 2d 974, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 71, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 257, 2001 WL 101717 (Fla. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

LEWIS, J.

We have for review the decision in Palmieri v. State, 745 So.2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which certified conflict with the opinions in McKnight v. State, 727 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), approved, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000), and Woods v. State, 740 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), approved sub nom. State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Palmieri challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act¹ (“the Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by previous opinions of 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); 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, the decision in Palmieri is approved to the extent that it is consistent with our opinions in Grant and Cotton.

It is so ordered.

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

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

LEWIS, J.

We have for review the decision in Palmieri v. State, 745 So.2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which certified conflict with the opinions in McKnight v. State, 727 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), approved, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000), and Woods v. State, 740 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), approved sub nom. State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Palmieri challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act¹ (“the Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by previous opinions of 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); 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, the decision in Palmieri is approved to the extent that it is consistent with our opinions in Grant and Cotton.

It is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

777 So. 2d 974, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 71, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 257, 2001 WL 101717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmieri-v-state-fla-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack