(PLA 2003) Rollinson v

.pdf

School

San Francisco State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

071106400

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

2

Uploaded by DrSeaLion1130

Report
Nicole Lopez Mason Triana Moesha Guerrier Isabela Socorro Cit±²³o´ Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. App.4 Dist.1999) Proµ¶·¸ra¹ His²º»y The Circuit Court of Palm Beach County convicted and sentenced Rollinson pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (PRRA).The fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision. Fac²¼ In August 1996, Kevin Rollinson was released from prison. Three years after his release from prison Rollison in May 1997 Rollinson he appeals his sentence imposed pursuant to section 775.082 (8), Florida Statutes (1997), the "Prison Releasee Reoffender Act" ("Act"), after his conviction for burglary of a structure (Count I), grand theft (Count II), and battery on a law enforcement officer (Count III). In July 1997, Rollinson committed burglary of a structure, grand theft, and battery on a law enforcement officer he committed felonies and was convicted and later sentenced. Rollinson filed an appeal to the fourth DCA. Leg±¹ is½¾¿ 1. Does the conviction of Rolling go against the ex post facto law of the U.S and Florida constitution? 2. Does Rollinson have standing to make a constitutional challenge to his sentence pursuant to the PRRA? 3. Is the separation of powers clause being violated in this case? 4. Did they violate his substantive due process? 5. Were Rollinson’s equal protection rights violated? 6. Is Rollinson’s procedural due process being violated, why or why not? ConµÀ¾s³oÁ le±À is½¾¿ 1. The verdict is not unlawful because Rollinson's conviction does not contravene the ex post facto statute because the offenses were not committed retroactively.
2. No, because Rollinson committed the crimes after this provision was passed. 3. No, in punishing Rollinson, the trial court used its discretion and factual findings. 4. No, Mr. Rollinson's fundamental rights to due process were not breached because the obligatory sentence provisions of the Act were put in place to safeguard communities from lifelong offenders. 5. No, because equal protection rights pertain to discrimination based on race, religion, or other arbitrary factors and not the protection of repeat criminals. The Act is for mandatory sentences meant to deter criminal recurrence. 6. Because of the Act's provision of notice and an opportunity to be heard, Rollinson's procedural due process rights were not infringed. This fits the conditions for a procedural due process. RatÃÄÁaÀ 1 & 2 DraÅ 1) Rational 1- In the Wise v. State case, the court initially construed section 775.082(8) of the Act in a way that gave the trial court some leeway in sentence. This interpretation, though, came later. It has been changed to make it clear that the state attorney, not the court, has the right to ask for additional punishment. According to McKnight v. State, which emphasized that the prosecutor's discretion under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act is analogous to a charging decision and does not contravene constitutional restrictions on the court's power to sentence, this change is consistent with case readings and supports that judgment. 2) Rational 2- The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (section 775.082(8)) was upheld by the court in McKnight v. State by emphasizing that when prosecutors decide to pursue enhanced penalties under this Act, they are more likely to be making a charge choice than a sentencing decision. The Act does not give the prosecutor more authority than what has been used in charging determinations, the court ruled. By granting the state attorney sentence discretion, they further demonstrated that the Act does not go against the constitution. This is consistent with instances where the prosecutor's discretion in using the Act was upheld. ConµÀ¾s³oÁ The "Prison Releasee Reoffender Act" does not violate ex post facto clauses, single subject requirements, separation of powers clauses, due process rights of equal protection, or procedural due process, according to the Court, which upholds the sentence imposed on Kevin Rollinson.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help