Case Title: Freddie Alexander v. State of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC96-397

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2001-05-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC96397
____________
FREDDIE ALEXANDER
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[May 17, 2001]
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Alexander v. State, 739 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). 
We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
Alexander challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act
on grounds previously addressed by 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
1. In its decision in Alexander, the Fifth District cited to its decision in Speed
v. State, 732 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), approved, 779 So. 2d 265 (Fla.
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-
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 does not permit a
“victim veto” which would violate a defendant’s due process rights by precluding
application of the Act in some instances but not others, 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, we approve the decision
of the district court to the extent it is consistent with Grant, McKnight, Cotton,1
and Ellis.
It is so ordered.
-3-
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
QUINCE, J., dissents.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Certified Direct Conflict
Fifth District - Case No. 5D99-724 
(Seminole County)
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Barbara C. Davis, Assistant Public
Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Kellie A. Nielan and Kristen L.
Davenport, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Respondent