Case Title: Fred Reuben Clarke v. State of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC00-305

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

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

Document:
1As framed in Woods, that question is:
DOES THE PRISON RELEASEE REOFFENDER 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. SC00-305
____________
FRED REUBEN CLARKE,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[February 8, 2001]
LEWIS, J.
We have for review the decision in Clarke v. State,  765 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1999), in which the First District certified the same question as in Woods v.
State,1 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), approved sub nom. State v. Cotton,
769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000). We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
2See § 775.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997).
-2-
Clarke challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act2
(“the Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed by previous
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 Clarke’s challenges to his sentencing as an habitual violent
felony offender to be lacking in merit.  See Herrington v. State, 643 So. 2d 1078
(Fla. 1994) (finding trial judge’s failure to make findings of fact before subjecting
defendant to sentencing under recidivist statute to be harmless error where record 
contained unrebutted evidence of defendant’s prior convictions).
 Accordingly,  the decision in Clarke is approved to the extent it is consistent
with Grant and Cotton. 
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ, concur.
-3-
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 - 
Direct Conflict
First District - Case No. 1D99-1035 
(Bay County)
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Robert Friedman, Assistant Public
Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau
Chief, Criminal Appeals, and Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General,
Tallahassee, Florida,
for Respondent
  
-4-