Case Title: Daniel Lookadoo v. State of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC96-460

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2001-01-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
1See § 775.082(9), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1998).
Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC96460
____________
DANIEL LOOKADOO,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[January 11, 2001]
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Lookadoo v. State, 737 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA
1999), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in State v. Cotton,
728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), quashed, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000).  We
have jurisdiction.  See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Lookadoo challenges his life sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender
Act1 (the “Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by this
2The district court, in affirming Lookadoo’s sentence, cites to Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla.
5th DCA), review granted, 743 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1999).  In Cotton, we disapproved the decision in Speed
to the extent that it was inconsistent with our opinion in Cotton. 
-2-
Court in other opinions.  See McKnight v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2000)
(holding that a defendant has the right both to present evidence to prove that the
defendant does not qualify for sentencing under the Act and to challenge the
State’s evidence regarding the defendant’s eligibility for sentencing as a prison
releasee reoffender); Grant v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S1032 (Fla. Nov. 2, 2000)
(rejecting an ex post facto challenge to the Act and holding that the Act neither
violates neither the single subject rule for legislation nor equal protection principles,
nor does it subject defendants properly sentenced under it to double jeopardy);
Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2000) (recognizing that, “[a]s to notice,
publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens
constructive notice of the consequences of their actions”) (quoting State v.
Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139, 142 (Fla. 1991)); State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 
2000) (holding that the Act does not violate separation of powers, is not void for
vagueness, and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a “victim
veto” precluding application of the Act).  Accordingly, the decision in Lookadoo is
approved to the extent it is consistent with Cotton,2 Ellis, McKnight, and Grant. 
It is so ordered.
-3-
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.
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 - 
Statutory Validity
Fifth District - Case No. 5D98-2423 
(Putnam County)
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lyle Hitchens, Assistant Public Defender,
Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Belle B. Schumann, David H.
Foxman, Kellie A. Nielan and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorneys General,
Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Respondent