STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
MANUEL SEGUNDO CARRASCO, RESPONDENT
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 State sought certiorari review of a trial court's order denying its petition to require public notice of a sexual predator's presence. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in relying on a repealed statute when a replacement statute was already in effect.
The trial court erred in denying the petition. Under the McKibben doctrine, when a statute is repealed and substantially reenacted with additions or changes, the reenacted provisions are deemed to have been in operation continuously from the original enactment, with new provisions treated as amendments effective from the new statute's effective date.
[1] A re-enacted statute that substantially re-enacts a repealed statute, with additions or changes, is deemed to have been in operation continuously from the original enactm…
[2] Registration requirements for sexual predators are regulatory in nature and are not considered punishment subject to ex post facto challenges.
Previewing 2 of 3 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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[W]here a statute has been repealed and substantially re-enacted by a statute which contains additions to or changes in the original statute, the re-enacted provisions are deemed to have been in operation continuously from the original enactment whereas the additions or changes are treated as amendments effective from the time the new statute goes into effect.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for analyzing whether a repealed statute was properly replaced by a new one, making the trial court's reliance on the repealed statute erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn April 1997, the State filed a petition under Florida Statutes sections 775.225 and 775.21(4)(b)(2) to require public notice of Manuel Carrasco's pr…
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 Public Notice Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State seeks certiorari review of an order denying its petition to require public notice of the presence of a sexual predator, Manuel Carrasco.
In April of 1997, the state filed a petition to require public notice of the presence of a sexual predator pursuant to section 775.225, Florida Statutes (1995), and section 775.21(4)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). The trial court denied the petition because section 775.225 was repealed in July of 1996. However, section 775.21 replaced the repealed statute and became effective on July 1, 1996. In McKibben v. Mallory, 293 So. 2d 48 (Fla.1974), the court stated:
[W]here a statute has been repealed and substantially re-enacted by a statute which contains additions to or changes in the original statute, the re-enacted provisions are deemed to have been in operation continuously from the original enactment whereas the additions or changes are treated as amendments effective from the time the new statute goes into effect.
McKibben, 293 So. 2d at 53.
Courts are almost universal in recognizing that registration requirements for sexual-predators are designed to enable the public to protect itself from dangers posed by sexual predators who are widely regarded as having high risks of recidivism. These courts recognize that registration statutes are regulatory in nature and do not constitute punishment subject to constitutional ex post facto challenges.
Fletcher v. State, 699 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the trial court’s order is quashed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
DELL, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McKIBBEN v. Mallory, 293 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1974)
- Fletcher v. State, 699 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)