Case Title: Fredrick Snell v. State of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC00-518

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2001-02-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
1As stated in Woods, that question is:
DOES THE PRISON RELEASEE REOFFENDER PUNISHMENT
ACT, CODIFIED AS SECTION 775.082(8), FLORIDA STATUTES
(1997), VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CLAUSE OF
THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-518
____________
FREDRICK SNELL,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[February 8, 2001]
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Snell v. State, 752 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), in
which the district court certified the same question of great public importance that it
had in Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) approved sub nom.
State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000).1  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, §
2See § 775.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997).
-2-
3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
Snell challenges his thirty-year prison sentence under the Prison Releasee
Reoffender Act2  (the “Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been previously
addressed by other 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).
We also find the other issues raised by Snell lacking in merit and decline to
comment further.  Accordingly, we approve the decision in Snell. 
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ, concur.
QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
-3-
QUINCE, J., dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d
345, 358-59 (Fla. 2000).
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Certified Great Public Importance
First District - Case No. 1D98-3732 
(Clay County)
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Fred Parker Bingham II, Assistant Public
Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau
Chief, Criminal Appeals, and Charmaine M. Millsaps, Assistant Attorney General,
Tallahassee, Florida,
for Respondent