State v. Cowart

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Cowart

761 So. 2d 1100, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 499, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1270, 2000 WL 796071

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 2000

DocketNo. SC95541

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 761 So. 2d 1100 (State v. Cowart) 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

State v. Cowart, 761 So. 2d 1100, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 499, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1270, 2000 WL 796071 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision in State v. Cowart, 762 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which the court certified to be in conflict with the opinion in 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)(4), Fla. Const.

We recently approved the First District’s decision in Woods, holding that the Act, as properly interpreted by the First District, does not violate separation of powers, and rejecting other constitutional challenges to the Act. See State v. Cotton, SC94996 & SC95281, — So.2d -, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000). Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Cotton, we quash the Second District’s decision in this case, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [1101]*1101Because it appears that the respondent entered a plea of guilty based upon the trial court’s indication that respondent, upon such plea, would not be sentenced pursuant to the Act, upon remand to the trial court, respondent shall have the right to withdraw his guilty plea.

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 State v. Cowart, 762 So.2d 527 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which the court certified to be in conflict with the opinion in 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)(4), Fla. Const.

We recently approved the First District’s decision in Woods, holding that the Act, as properly interpreted by the First District, does not violate separation of powers, and rejecting other constitutional challenges to the Act. See State v. Cotton, SC94996 & SC95281, — So.2d -, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000). Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Cotton, we quash the Second District’s decision in this case, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [1101]*1101Because it appears that the respondent entered a plea of guilty based upon the trial court’s indication that respondent, upon such plea, would not be sentenced pursuant to the Act, upon remand to the trial court, respondent shall have the right to withdraw his guilty plea.

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 1100, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 499, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1270, 2000 WL 796071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cowart-fla-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack