Title: John Noble v. State of Florida

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-555
____________
JOHN NOBLE,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[May 24, 2001]
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Noble v. State, 765 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).  We
have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Noble challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (the
“Act”) on several grounds, most of which have been addressed previously 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
-2-
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 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)).
Noble also argues that the Act impinges on his right to plea bargain.  The
United States Supreme Court has definitively held that there is no such
constitutional right.  See Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977).  We also
find entirely misplaced Noble’s reliance on cases from Florida courts to support
his assertion that a fundamental right to plea bargain exists. 
Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court to the extent it is
consistent with Grant, McKnight, Cotton, 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 Great Public Importance
Fourth District - Case No. 4D99-0261 
(St. Lucie County)
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Susan D. Cline, Assistant Public
Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Celia A. Terenzio, Bureau Chief, and
Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida,
for Respondent