NEIL D. CHAVEZ
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision denying a defendant's petition to remove his sexual offender registration requirement. The court found that the defendant's offenses were not among those listed in the statute that allows for such removal.
No, the statute does not apply to the appellant's offenses. The court held that the appellant's convictions are not enumerated within the statute that permits the removal of the registration requirement.
[1] A court may not extend the enumerated offenses in section 943.04354, Florida Statutes, by analogy or construction to include offenses not expressly listed in the statute.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The trial court properly denied Appellant’s petition for the removal of the requirement to register as a sexual offender because neither of Appellant’s offenses are included within section 943.04354, Florida Statutes (2018), which provides that as long as certain requirements are satisfied, a court may consider removing the registration requirement for defendants who are convicted of the enumerated crimes of lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than sixteen years of age, sexual performance of a child, and engaging in certain prohibited computer transmissions.”
This quote explains the core reason for the denial of the petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNeil D. Chavez was adjudicated guilty and sentenced for traveling to meet a minor and unlawful use of a computer service. He petitioned the trial cour…
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 Plain Language Statutory Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Neil D. Chavez, appeals an Order Denying Defendant’s Petition for Removal of the Requirement to Register as a Sexual Offender. Appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced for the offenses of traveling to meet a minor in violation of section 847.0135(4)(b), Florida Statutes, and the unlawful use of a computer service in violation of section 847.0135(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The trial court properly denied Appellant’s petition for the removal of the requirement to register as a sexual offender because neither of Appellant’s offenses are included within section 943.04354, Florida Statutes (2018), which provides that as long as certain requirements are satisfied, a court may consider removing the registration requirement for defendants who are convicted of the enumerated crimes of lewd or lascivious offenses committed
upon or in the presence of persons less than sixteen years of age, sexual performance of a child, and engaging in certain prohibited computer transmissions. Although Appellant attempts to liken his offenses to those provided for in the statute, we are not at liberty to add words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature. See Seagrave v. State, 802 So. 2d 281, 287 (Fla. 2001); see also English v. State, 191 So. 3d 448, 450 (Fla. 2016) (noting that when a statute’s language is clear, a court need not look behind the statute’s plain language); Courson v. State, 24 So. 3d 1249, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (noting that courts are without the power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way that would extend, modify, or limit its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications). Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed. AFFIRMED. LEWIS, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Seagrave v. State, 802 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2001)
- English v. State, 191 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2016)