DARRYL DWAYNE MCGHEE

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

LONG, J.

Darryl McGhee appeals his conviction for failure to register in Florida as a sex offender. To prove the crime, the State had to show that McGhee was convicted of a sexual offense that required registration. § 943.0435(14), Fla. Stat. To make this showing, the State presented evidence that McGhee was convicted in California of “oral copulation” with the use of “force / injury.” The documents cited the relevant California Penal Code provisions that define and prohibit forced oral copulation. The documents also indicated that McGhee was required to register and cited the California sexual offender registration provision of the penal code. McGhee argued on a motion for judgment of acquittal, and now on appeal, that the evidence was insufficient to show that he was the same individual from the California judgment and that, even if he was, the documents failed to show that he was required to register in Florida. Our sufficiency-of-the-evidence review requires that we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and ask whether a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179, 200 (Fla. 2020).

We must draw all reasonable evidentiary inferences in favor of the State. Id. The California documents contained McGhee’s full name, a clear photograph, date of birth, state of birth, extensive tattoo descriptions, gender, race, and height. All of which matched McGhee.

We find that a rational trier of fact, looking at the submitted California documents, could determine that McGhee was the same individual convicted in California. With McGhee’s identity established and his failure to register unchallenged, a rational jury could have found McGhee guilty based on the evidence presented. We also reject McGhee’s claim that the jury was required to engage in the legal analysis to determine whether California’s forced oral copulation was similar to a Florida offense. This is a question of law for the trial court. See Montoure v. State, 880 So. 2d 793, 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (explaining that “the trial court must compare the elements of the out-of-state crime to the elements of the Florida crime” and that determination is a question of law which excludes consideration of “facts from the trial” (emphasis added)).

The trial court correctly determined that the offense identified in the California documents was an offense similar to a qualifying Florida offense. AFFIRMED. BILBREY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________