FRANKLIN R. HENDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Henderson challenges the constitutionality of Florida statutes preventing early release for certain offenders, arguing violations of equal protection, ex post facto doctrine, and First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition, finding the statutory classifications reasonable and the procedural requirements constitutional.
The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that section 944.276's classification of inmates is reasonable and bears a just relation to the legislation's purpose; section 944.276 is procedural and does not violate the ex post facto clause; and Rule 33-19.001's requirement that offenders accept responsibility for their behavior does not violate access to courts or Fifth Amendment rights.
[1] A statute preventing certain classes of convicted offenders from obtaining early release until minimum mandatory or enhanced sentences are served is constitutional if the…
[2] A statute that is procedural in nature and does not create substantive rights does not violate ex post facto restrictions.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We conclude that the classification of inmates in section 944.276 is reasonable and bears a just relation to the purpose of the legislation.”
Establishes the court's holding on the equal protection challenge to the statute's classification of offenders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenderson was convicted on July 12, 1984 of lewd assault on a child and sentenced to 15 years incarceration. He filed a petition for writ of certiorar…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right Of Access To The Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a June 7, 1988 order entered in the circuit court for Leon County, Judge Gary presiding, by which his petition for writ of certiorari requesting habeas corpus relief was denied. He contends that 1) section 944.276, Florida Statutes, violates the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; 2) section 944.276, Florida Statutes, violates the ex post facto doctrine; and 3) section 917.012, Florida Statutes, violates the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. We affirm.
Appellant was convicted July 12, 1984 of lewd assault on a child and sentenced to 15 years incarceration. Appellant on March 30, 1988 filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this court requesting habeas corpus relief, challenging the constitutionality of sections 944.276 and 917.012, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-19.001, enacted pursuant to section 917.-012. Appellee filed a motion to transfer, and the case was transferred to the Second Judicial Circuit. The trial court issued an order to show cause, and appellee filed a response to the order. The trial court on June 7, 1988 entered an order denying the writ. Appellant filed a motion for rehearing, which the trial court denied on June 13, 1988.
Section 944.276, Florida Statutes, prevents certain classes of convicted offenders from obtaining early release until minimum mandatory or enhanced sentences are served. The early release of sex offenders and habitual offenders is affected. Section 944.276(1)(c) and (d). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on equal protection grounds that reasonable, though disparate, treatment of sex offenders is constitutional. Hendking v. Smith, 781 F. 2d 850 (11th Cir.1986). We conclude that the classification of inmates in section 944.276 is reasonable and bears a just relation to the purpose of the legislation.
Section 944.276 is not violative of the ex post facto restrictions of Article I, section 9, clause 3, of the United States Constitution, being procedural in nature and not creating substantive rights. See Blankenship v. Dugger, 521 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1988); Mayo v. Dugger, 535 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Tims v. Folsom, 535 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977). Rule 33-19.001(3) provides:
An offender shall be considered amenable for treatment if he or she is an individual with a psycho sexual disorder who is motivated to participate in treatment for this disorder and has an intellectual capacity for logical reasoning and insight. The offender must be able to feel some remorse for his or her behavior and to eventually accept responsibility for his behavior and for changing it. The offender must not be psychotic or suffer from a brain injury, disease or other central nervous system condition that precludes effective treatment.
The rule does not violate appellant’s right of access to the courts in requiring that he accept responsibility for his behavior. Under the rule, appellant may choose to participate in the program or to pursue an appeal of his conviction. The requirement under the rule that sex offenders admit responsibility for their behavior does not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination in that any admission of the commission of the offense occurs after the defendant’s conviction, and Fifth Amendment protections apply prior to conviction. See Marcheti v. U.S., 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472, 92 S.Ct. 1670, 32 L.Ed.2d 234 (1972). Cf. Chavis v. Dugger, 538 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Even if the requirement of admission of guilt under the rule impinged on Fifth Amendment rights, the inmate is not compelled to incriminate himself because the inmate may choose not to participate in the program.
Affirmed.
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dugger v. Rodrick, 584 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1991)…(1981). See Blankenship v. Dugger, 521 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1988). Because section 944.277 does not operate to deprive appellant of a substantive right, it is not ex post facto as applied to him. Miller, 565 So. 2d at 848-49. Accord Henderson v. State, 543 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 551 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1989); Mayo v. Dugger, 535 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). This case is controlled by Blankenship v. Dugger, 521 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1988), in which this Court passed on the question of whether an in…
-
Miller v. Dugger, 565 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…o as applied to him. In a similar vein, this court has determined that the sexual offense classification in section 944.276, replaced by section 944.277, is reasonable and bears a just relation to the purpose of the legislation. Henderson v. State, 543 So. 2d 344, 345 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 551 So. 2d 461 (Fla.1989). See also Hendking v. Smith, 781 F. 2d 850 (11th Cir.1986). Thus, appellant’s claimed violation of equal protection rights also must fail. Accordingly, the order denying appellant’s peti…
-
Montana v. Imlay, 506 U.S. 5 (U.S. 1992)…91, 813 P. 2d 979, 985 (1991). The constitutional question is an important one and the decision below places the Montana Supreme Court in conflict with other courts. See State v. Gleason, 154 Vt. 205, 576 A. 2d 1246 (1990); Henderson v. [*7] State, 543 So. 2d 344 (Fla. App. 1989); Russell v. Eaves, 722 F. Supp. 558 (ED Mo. 1989), appeal dism’d, 902 F. 2d 1574 (CA8 1990). I believe we should decide the question and resolve the conflict. As an initial matter, there can be no doubt that the decision below is…
Authorities Cited
- Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1968)
- Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1977)
- Zicarelli v. N.J. State Comm'n of Investigation, 406 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1972)
- Blankenship v. Dugger, 521 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1988)
- Mayo v. Dugger, 535 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Chavis v. Dugger, 538 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Hendking v. Smith, 781 F.2d 850 (11th Cir. 1986)
- Tims v. J.D. Folsom, 535 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)