CHARLES F. ROSIER, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After pleading guilty to several counts of sexual battery, appellant filed a motion requesting that the court certify him for a hearing to determine whether he was a mentally disordered sex offender as contemplated by Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1977). He attached to his motion affidavits and reports of a psychiatrist and a psychologist which stated that, in their opinions, appellant qualified as a mentally disordered sex offender. The court denied the motion. Appellant now contends that the court should have certified him pursuant to Section 917.14, Florida Statutes (1977). We agree.
While the statute is couched in discretionary language, we think that it is an abuse of discretion for the court to refuse to certify a criminal defendant for a hearing where, as here, the defendant makes a strong and unrébutted showing that he meets the qualifications of a mentally disordered sex offender. See Hendricks v. State, 360 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions, but we vacate the sentences imposed upon him and remand to the court with directions to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 917.14.
GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1980)…tween an immediate search without a warrant and the car’s immobilization until a warrant is obtained.. . . Id. at 51-52, 90 S.Ct. at 1981 (footnote omitted). See also Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67, 96 S.Ct. 304, 46 L.Ed.2d 209 (1975); Flynn v. State, 374 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The facts in this case are even more compelling. Gluesenkamp, who owned the van, was not the one who was arrested for failing to stop at the inspection station since he was not the one driving at the time. Since he had the keys…
-
Turner v. State, 388 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…y declined to rule on whether “the smell of marijuana was sufficient probable cause supporting the search warrant.” Pederson, supra, at n. 1, pp. 368-69. We upheld a search without a warrant under otherwise identical circumstances in Flynn v. State, 374 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.1st DCA 1979). Appellant’s final point, that the state failed adequately to identify the substance seized as marijuana, deserves discussion. The state’s expert witness, Harriet Pfaffman, a chemist with FDLE, stated she was familiar with botany…
-
Luxenburg v. State, 384 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…lant’s consent was limited each time to opening the truck and the box; his actions in no way authorized Shope to grab the bag and tear it open. Gonterman v. State, 358 So. 2d 595 (Fla.1st DCA 1978). Shope did not smell marijuana; see Flynn v. State, 374 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.1st DCA 1979). The inspector did not ask for permission to take the bag out of the box or to examine it. In Rose v. State, 369 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1st DCA 1979), the defendant refused a request to inspect boxes contained in his truck, but a supervi…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hendricks v. State, 360 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)