With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". J. We have for review Snell v. State, 752 So.2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), in which the district court certified the same question of great public importance that it had in Woods v. State, 740 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) approved sub nom. State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Snell challenges his thirty-year prison sentence under the Prison Releasee Reof-fender Act (the “Act”) on several grounds, all of which have been previously 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 neither the single subject rule for legislation nor principles of equal protection); State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). We also find the other issues raised by Snell

A: holding that the act does not violate separation of powers is not void for vagueness and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto precluding application of the act
B: holding that dna act violates neither substantive nor procedural due process under the fifth amendment
C: holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law
D: 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
D.