Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (PRA)

Rollinson v. State, 743 So. 2d 585 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 1999)

Procedural History

The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court convicted and sentenced the defendant for crimes he committed pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (PRRA). He appealed his conviction and sentence to the Fourth District Court of Appeal and they affirmed that the Act does not violate any constitutionality challenged the defendant.

Facts

1. The defendant committed to serve time for certain crimes and he was prison released in August 1996.
2. In May 1997, the Prison Releasee Reoffender Act (PRRA) is passed. The Prison Releasee Reoffender Act says that when a defendant commits a crime within three years upon being released from prison the defendant must serve an additional

Issue 4- Does the Act violate the Substantive Due Process?
Issue 5- Does the Act violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Issue 6- Does the Act violate the Procedural Due Process?

Conclusion

1. No, the Act does not being unconstitutionally applied as an Ex Post Facto law Clauses.
2. No, the Act does not violate the Single Subject.
3. No, the Act does not violate the Separation of Powers Clause.
4. No, the Act does not violate the Substantive Due Process.
5. No, the Act does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
6. No, the Act does not violate the Procedural Due Process.

Rationales

Rationale 1- Rollinson argues that the law violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses because he was sentenced after the law was passed increasing his sentence. The court rejected that argument and said that the test in determining on whether or not the law violates the Ex Post Fact Clause requires “(1) whether the law is retrospective in its effect; and (2) whether the law alters the definition of criminal conduct or increases the penalty by which a crime is punishable.” In the same way, the court analyzes that “The Act is not being applied retroactively to Rollinson; it is being applied to criminal conduct that occurred in July 1997, after enactment of the statute in May 1997.” Thus, the court concluded “the Act is not being unconstitutionally applied to Rollinson as an ex post facto

The court rejected that allegation and said that the test for determining whether or not the law violates substantive due process involves when “it bears a reasonable relationship to a permissive legislative objective and is not discriminatory, arbitrary, or oppressive.” Consequently, the court supports that the Act was created in order to avoid further Acts of crime enacted by reoffenders by making sure that they will receive and serve the maximum and the entire sentence under the law. Therefore, the court concluded that the argument fails due to the responsibilities of the trial courts to just adjudge a minimum mandatory