Title: Oralia Baez v. State of Florida

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

1See § 775.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997).
Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC99-130
ORALIA BAEZ,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[February 8, 2001]
LEWIS, J.
We have for review the decision in Baez v. State, 747 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1999).  We have jurisdiction.  See  art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
Baez challenges her five-year prison sentence under the Prison Releasee
Reoffender Act1 (“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
2The district court, in affirming Baez’s sentence, cites to its decision in State v. Wise, 744 So. 2d
1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), quashed, 762 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2000).  In Cotton, we disapproved the
decision in Wise to the extent that it was inconsistent with our opinion in Cotton. 
. 
-2-
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);2 Ellis v.
State, 762 So. 2d 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,  the decision in Baez is approved to the extent that it is
consistent with  Grant, Cotton, and Ellis. 
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ, concur.
QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
QUINCE, J., dissenting.
-3-
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
Fourth District - Case No. 4D98-4117 
(Palm Beach County)
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Maxine Williams, Assistant Public
Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Ceclia Terenzio, Bureau Chief, and
Claudine LaFrance, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida,
for Respondent