Title: Patrick Rooney v. State of Florida

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-1058
____________
PATRICK ROONEY,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[June 7, 2001]
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Rooney v. State, 756 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). 
We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Rooney challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act
(the “Act”) on several grounds, many of which have been addressed 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 1039
-2-
(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)).
Rooney also argues that his sentence under the Act impinges on his
constitutional 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 Rooney’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.  
-3-
It is so ordered.
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. 4D99-2384 
(St. Lucie County)
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Karen E. Ehrlich, Assistant Public
Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Daniel P. Hyndman, Assistant
Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida,
for Respondent