Title: Robert F. Medina v. State of Florida

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-279
____________
ROBERT F. MEDINA,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[May 30, 2002]
QUINCE, J.
We have for review the decision in Medina v. State, 751 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2000), which certified conflict with the decision in State v. Huggins, 744 So.
2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), approved, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2001).  We have
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
Robert Medina raises two issues before this Court.  First, he argues the Prison
Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act (PRRP) cannot be applied to the crime of
burglary of an unoccupied dwelling.  On this issue we vacate the decision of the
1  The various constitutional challenges are:  the PRRP violates the single subject
rule, violates separation of powers, is cruel and unusual, is void for vagueness, violates
due process, violates equal protection, and is overbroad.
-2-
Second District and remand for reconsideration upon application of our decision in
State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2001). 
The second issue involves various constitutional challenges to the PRRP.1 
The Second District denied the constitutional challenges and held that all of these
issues have been resolved, citing Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA
1999), approved in part, quashed in part, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000).  As to the
constitutional challenges, we approve the decision of the Second District based
upon our decisions in Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000), and State v.
Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000).
It is so ordered. 
SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
LEWIS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which WELLS,
C.J., concurs.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF
FILED, DETERMINED.
LEWIS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that the PRRP is constitutional.  However, with
respect to the question of whether burglary of a dwelling, whether occupied or not,
-3-
qualifies the defendant for prison releasee reoffender sentencing, I respectfully
dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion, and for the reasons set forth
in the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Wells, in State v. Huggins, 802 So. 2d 276
(Fla. 2001).
WELLS, C.J., concurs.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified
Direct Conflict of Decisions
Second District - Case No. 2D99-1311
(Highlands County)
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public
Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Chief of Criminal Law, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General,
Tampa, Florida,
for Respondent