Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in Palmieri v. State, 745 So.2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), which certified conflict with the opinions in McKnight v. State, 727 So.2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), approved, 769 So.2d 1039 (Fla.2000), and Woods v. State, 740 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), approved sub nom. State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Palmieri challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (“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>). Accordingly, the decision in Palmieri is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved (B) holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law (C) 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 (D) 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 (E) holding that dna act violates neither substantive nor procedural due process under the fifth amendment
Output (English): holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved