RONALD DENNIS ANDREWS, 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.
Ronald Dennis Andrews appeals his resentencing to sexual offender probation under Florida Statute section 948.03(5), arguing it constitutes an enhanced sentence in violation of double jeopardy. The court affirms, holding that sexual offender probation requirements are regulatory and remedial in nature, not punitive, and therefore do not violate double jeoparty protection.
The court held that sexual offender probation requirements imposed under section 948.03(5) do not violate double jeopardy because these requirements are mandatory, impose no affirmative disability or restraint on defendants, and are remedial and regulatory rather than punitive in nature.
[1] Sexual offender probation requirements are regulatory and remedial in nature, not punitive, and therefore do not violate double jeopardy protections.
[2] Mandatory sexual offender probation requirements do not impose an affirmative disability or restraint on defendants.
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“Because the probation requirements of section 948.03(5) are mandatory, Muzzo v. State, 773 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), because this section imposes no affirmative disability or restraint on defendants, and because its purpose is remedial and regulatory rather than punitive, we hold that Andrews' resentence does not violate double jeopardy.”
This quote establishes the court's three-part test for determining that sexual offender probation is regulatory and does not violate double jeopardy.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrews originally pleaded nolo contendere to three counts of lewd, lascivious, or indecent act upon a child. His original sentence was 10 years in 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 Regulatory Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, C.J.
Ronald Dennis Andrews timely appeals after the court imposed sexual offender probation at his resentencing hearing. (He had originally pled nolo contendré to three counts of lewd, lascivious, or indecent act upon a child.) Andrews’ original sentence was for 10 years in prison followed by 5 years of probation. On resentencing, he received 63.6 months in prison followed by 5 years sexual offender probation. He now argues that the court’s resentencing him to sexual offender probation under section 948.03(5), Florida Statutes (1999), enhanced his original sentence and, thus, violated double jeopardy.
This and other courts have addressed and rejected similar issues raised before. See, e.g., Simmons v. State, 753 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(holding section 943.0435, Florida’s sexual offender statute, was regulatory in nature); Collie v. State, 710 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)(holding registration requirements imposed on sexual predators were not punitive, and therefore did not violate prohibition against double jeopardy, where registration was intended to regulate conduct of violent sex offenders, and where registration was rationally related to legislature’s intent to reduce incidences of sexual predatory behavior and protect the public), rev. den., 722 So. 2d 192 (Fla.1998); Rickman v. State, 714 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(holding registration requirements of Florida Sexual Predators Act were procedural and regulatory in nature, and, therefore, did not constitute “punishment” in violation of ex post facto clause). Because the probation requirements of section 948.03(5) are mandatory, Muzzo v. State, 773 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), because this section imposes no affirmative disability or restraint on defendants, and because its purpose is remedial and regulatory rather than punitive, we hold that Andrews’ resentence does not violate double jeopardy.
AFFIRMED.
STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bertram OCE v. State, 795 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…is case was subject to the statutory conditions as a matter of law, the belated reduction of those statutory conditions to writing as an addendum to the probationary order did not violate the defendant’s double jeopardy rights. See Andrews v. State, 792 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). . Defendant’s prior motion for postconviction relief in which he sought to vacate the plea bargain on the ground that it was involuntary was the subject of the appeal in Oce v. State, 742 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). . This…
Authorities Cited
- Collie v. State, 710 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Simmons v. State, 753 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Houston v. State, 714 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Muzzo v. State, 773 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)