LEANDER J. COBLENTZ, JR., 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.
Leander Coblentz appeals the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging a sexual predator designation imposed at sentencing. The court affirms the denial but encourages Coblentz to pursue civil remedies such as declaratory relief, as the sexual predator status is not part of the criminal sentence and lacks clear appellate review procedures.
The trial court's order denying the Rule 3.800(a) motion is affirmed because the sexual predator designation is not a portion of the sentence and does not constitute an illegal sentence subject to direct criminal appeal. However, Coblentz may pursue civil remedies such as declaratory relief to challenge the sexual predator determination.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle to challenge a determination of sexual predator status…
[2] A determination of sexual predator status is a civil finding separate from a criminal sentence.
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“This court has held that the sexual predator status is not a portion of the sentence.”
Establishes that sexual predator designation is a civil matter, not a criminal sentence component subject to direct appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn July 1999, Coblentz entered a nolo contendere plea to two counts of handling and fondling and one count of indecent exposure, offenses occurring in…
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 Motion For Relief From Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.
Leander J. Coblentz, Jr., appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm without prejudice to Mr. Coblentz’s seeking relief through a civil remedy. See Angell v. State, 712 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
In July 1999, Mr. Coblentz entered a nolo contendere plea to two counts of handling and fondling and one count of indecent exposure. These offenses allegedly occurred in September 1997. Mr. Cob-lentz received sentences totaling 102.15 months’ prison, followed by 1 year of community control and 5 years’ probation. He does not contest these sentences.
Apparently, the trial court also declared that Mr. Coblentz was a sexual predator pursuant to section 775.21(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1997). We assume from our record that the trial court made this separate “written finding” at the sentencing hearing. See § 775.21(5)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Mr. Coblentz’s attorney did not file a direct appeal of this finding.
Candidly, we are uncertain what appellate remedy was available to Mr. Coblentz at that point in time. It would appear that Mr. Coblentz entered into a voluntary plea in the criminal case and that his sentence was lawful. He had no basis for an appeal in his criminal case. See Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114, 119 (Fla.2000). This court has held that the sexual predator status is not a portion of the sentence. See Collie v. State, 710 So. 2d 1000, 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 722 So. 2d 192 (Fla.), and cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1058, 119 S.Ct. 624, 142 L.Ed.2d 563 (1998). It is not clear to us that he had a right to court-appointed counsel to pursue an appeal of this civil finding.
Mr. Coblentz claims that he does not qualify as a sexual predator. His convictions are second-degree felonies. Under section 775.21(4)(c) he would qualify as a sexual predator only if he had a prior conviction for an enumerated crime. He claims that he has no such prior conviction. The State has not disputed his claim in this record.
In Angell, 712 So. 2d 1132, this court held that a person in Mr. Coblentz’s situation should seek a civil remedy. We suggested that an action for declaratory relief might be the appropriate vehicle. We note that Mr. Coblentz filed his motion within a year of the entry of the order determining sexual predator status. It is arguable that the trial court could, and perhaps should, have treated this motion as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.
Thus, although we affirm the order on appeal, we are convinced that Mr. Cob-lentz and others in his situation should have some vehicle to review the civil order that determines their status as sexual predators. At least from a practical perspective, we doubt that a pro se right to seek a direct appeal of this civil proceeding within thirty days of sentencing is a workable solution.
On remand, we would encourage Mr. Coblentz to file a civil proceeding in hopes both that the merits of his case can be tested and that the trial court can be given an opportunity to devise a workable mechanism to resolve such claims. At this point, we decline to certify this question to the supreme court as a matter of great public importance, but we are sending a copy of this opinion to The Florida Bar Criminal Procedure Rules Committee and Appellate Court Rules Committee for consideration.
Affirmed.
WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…Concur. . The State has argued that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the order designating Mr. Milks a sexually violent predator because it was entered months after Mr. Milks entered a plea to the charges against him. See Coblentz v. State, 775 So. 2d 359, 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We conclude that we have jurisdiction in this direct appeal of the trial court's [*1169] order to review whether the sexual predator designation violates constitutional principles of separation of powers or procedural due pr…
-
King v. State, 911 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…filed a motion for relief from the amended sentence. He explained the nature of this error and asked the court to correct his designation under rule 3.800, “civil relief,” or “any other petition for a writ,” citing our opinion in Coblentz v. State, 775 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The trial court denied this motion with an order suggesting that the trial court believed that Mr. King’s sexual predator designation was legally correct but also recognizing that the issue was not reviewable by any standard post…1 / 4
-
Renoit Saintelien v. State, 990 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008)…ignation challenges in criminal postconviction proceedings, see 911 So. 2d at 231 (citing Angell v. State, 712 So. 2d 1132, 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)), but this approach proved to be judicially inefficient. See id. at 231-33 (citing Coblentz v. State, 775 So. 2d 359, 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (remanding for Coblentz to raise his sexual predator designation challenge in a civil proceeding although the record strongly indicated that the designation was erroneous); Coblentz v. State, 855 So. 2d 681, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA…
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
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- Collie v. State, 710 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Geis v. Chira, 712 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Sperry v. California, 525 U.S. 1058 (U.S. 1998)
- Coleman v. Calderon, 525 U.S. 1058 (U.S. 1998)