TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Aguayo v. State

David AGUAYO v. STATE of Florida

Aguayo v. State, 789 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2001)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 28, 2001
Docket
No. SC00-216
Judges
Anstead, Harding, Lewis, Pariente, Quince, Shaw, Wells
Citations
789 So. 2d 33726 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 4322001 Fla. LEXIS 12512001 WL 721019

Opinion of the Court — Lewis

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

LEWIS, J.

We have for review Aguayo v. State, 747 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

The petitioner challenges his sentence under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (the “Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been previously addressed by 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 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 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 (Fla.2000) (recognizing that publication in the Laws of Florida or the Florida Statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions). Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court to the extent it is consistent with Grant, McKnight, Cotton, and Ellis . We also deny as moot the motion of the petitioner’s counsel to withdraw from representation.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Ellis v. State, 762 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2000) 101
Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000) 285
State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000) 266
McKnight v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2000) 86
Aguayo v. State, 747 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list