State v. Damico

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Damico

762 So. 2d 524, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 537, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1286, 2000 WL 854296

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 29, 2000

DocketNo. SC 96392

StatusPublished

This text of 762 So. 2d 524 (State v. Damico) 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. Damico, 762 So. 2d 524, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 537, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1286, 2000 WL 854296 (Fla. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision in State v. Damico, 742 So.2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which the district 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 Prison Releasee Reoffender 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, Nos. SC94996 & SC95281, — So.2d -, 2000 WL [525]*525766521 (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 our opinion in Cotton. Because it appears that the respondent entered a plea of guilty with the understanding 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. Damico, 742 So.2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which the district 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 Prison Releasee Reoffender 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, Nos. SC94996 & SC95281, — So.2d -, 2000 WL [525]*525766521 (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 our opinion in Cotton. Because it appears that the respondent entered a plea of guilty with the understanding 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)

762 So. 2d 524, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 537, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1286, 2000 WL 854296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-damico-fla-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack