Case Title: Wahill Saleh Hack v. State of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC95-837

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2001-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
1See § 775.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997).
Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC95837
____________
WAHILL SALEH HACK,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[February 1, 2001]
LEWIS, J.
We have for review  Hack v. State, 733 So. 2d 598 (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.
Hack challenges his five-year prison sentence under the Prison Releasee
Reoffender Act1 (“the Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed
2 In its decision in Hack, the Fifth District cited to its decision in Speed v. State, 732 So. 2d 17
(Fla. 5th DCA 1999), approved, No. SC95706 (Fla. Feb. 1, 2001).  In our decision in Cotton, we
disapproved the opinion in Speed to the extent that it implied, in dicta, that a subsection of the Act gives
to each victim a veto over the imposition of the mandatory sentences that are prescribed in other parts of
the Act. 
-2-
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 );
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); 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); Ellis v. State, 762 So.
2d 912 912 (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)).  Accordingly,  the decision in Hack is approved to the extent it is
consistent with Cotton,2 Ellis, McKnight, and Grant. 
-3-
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.
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. 5D98-3031 
(Orange County)
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lyle R. Hitchens, Assistant Public
Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Belle B. Schumann, Kristen L.
Davenport and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach,
Florida,
for Respondent