Title: Robert Sturgis V. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC96-210
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: February 15, 2001

1See § 775.082(8), Fla. Stat. (1997).
Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC96210
____________
ROBERT STURGIS,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[February 15 2001]
LEWIS, J.
We have for review  Sturgis v. State, 733 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Sturgis challenges his fifteen-year sentence under the Prison Releasee
Reoffender Act1 (the “Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been addressed
by other 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 Sturgis’ sentence, cited to its decision in  Speed v. State, 732 So.
2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), approved, No. SC95706 (Fla. Feb. 1, 2001).  In our decision in Cotton, we
disapproved the opinion in Speed to the extent that it implied, in dicta, that a subsection of the Act gives
to each victim a veto over the imposition of the mandatory sentences that are prescribed in other parts of
the Act. 
-2-
neither the single subject rule for legislation nor principles of equal protection );
McKnight v. State, 769 So. 2d 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 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, we approve the decision in Sturgis. 
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ, concur.
QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.
-3-
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
QUINCE, J., dissenting.
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
Fifth District - Case No. 5D98-1291 
(Volusia County)
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and M. A. Lucas, Assistant Public Defender,
Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Belle B. Schumann, Kristen L.
Davenport and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach,
Florida,
for Respondent