Title: Robert F. Medina v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC00-280
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: March 14, 2002

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-280
____________
ROBERT F. MEDINA,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[March 14, 2002]
QUINCE, J.
We have for review the decision in Medina v. State, 758 So. 2d 113 (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 that the
Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act (PRRP) cannot be applied to the
crime of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling.  On this issue we quash the decision
1  The various constitutional challenges are:  the PRRP violates the single subject
rule, violates separation of powers, imposes cruel and unusual punishment, is void for
vagueness, violates due process, violates equal protection, and is overbroad.
-2-
of the 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 and quashed in part, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000).  As to the
constitutional challenges, we approve the decision of the Second District based on
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, ANSTEAD, HARDING 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. 2D99-1313
(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