Patten v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Patten v. State

762 So. 2d 506, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 497, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1261, 2000 WL 821400

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 2000

DocketNo. SC95950

StatusPublished

This text of 762 So. 2d 506 (Patten 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

Patten v. State, 762 So. 2d 506, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 497, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1261, 2000 WL 821400 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision in Patten v. State, 733 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), in which the district court affirmed the lower court’s decision (interpreting the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997)(the “Act”) to be a mandatory sentencing provision). In so doing, the Fifth District relied on Woods v. State, 740 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and McKnight v. State, 727 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). 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). For the reasons expressed in Cotton, we [507]*507approve 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 Patten v. State, 733 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), in which the district court affirmed the lower court’s decision (interpreting the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, section 775.082(8), Florida Statutes (1997)(the “Act”) to be a mandatory sentencing provision). In so doing, the Fifth District relied on Woods v. State, 740 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and McKnight v. State, 727 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). 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). For the reasons expressed in Cotton, we [507]*507approve 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)

762 So. 2d 506, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 497, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1261, 2000 WL 821400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patten-v-state-fla-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack