DONALD WALKER, 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.
Donald Walker appealed his designation as a sexual predator under Florida law after pleading guilty to lewd or lascivious molestation and exhibition of his minor child. The court affirmed the designation, holding that the statutory exception for parents applies only to certain kidnapping and child luring offenses, not to the lewd conduct statutes under which Walker was convicted.
Walker was properly designated as a sexual predator. The statutory exception that excludes a defendant who is the victim's parent applies only to convictions under sections 787.01, 787.02, and 787.025 (kidnapping, false imprisonment, and child luring), not to convictions under section 800.04 (lewd or lascivious conduct). Therefore, Walker's status as the victim's parent does not exempt him from sexual predator designation.
[1] A sexual predator designation may apply to a parent convicted of lewd or lascivious molestation or exhibition involving their minor child, depending on the specific statu…
[2] The limitation in the Florida Sexual Predators Act excluding parents from designation does not apply to convictions under section 800.04 of the Florida Statutes.
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“Appellant contends that the sexual predator designation does not apply to him because of an ambiguity in the statute.”
States the appellant's primary contention that the statute is ambiguous regarding the parental exception.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker pleaded guilty to one count of lewd or lascivious molestation and one count of lewd or lascivious exhibition, with his minor child as the victi…
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 Sexual Predator Designation cases and more on FLexlaw
TORPY, J.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether Appellant was properly designated as a sexual predator, after he pled guilty to one count of lewd or lascivious molestation and one count of lewd or lascivious exhibition, wherein the victim was Appellant’s minor child. We affirm.
Appellant contends that the sexual predator designation does not apply to him because of an ambiguity in the statute. The Florida Sexual Predators Act provides that an offender shall be designated a sexual predator, upon conviction, if:
1. The felony is:
a. A capital, life, or first-degree felony violation, or any attempt thereof, of s. 787.01 or s. 787.02, where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim’s parent, or of chapter 794, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0145, or a violation of similar law of another jurisdiction; or b. Any felony violation, or any attempt thereof, of s. 787.01, s. 787.02, or s. 787.025, where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim’s parent; chapter 794, excluding ss. 794.011(10) and 794.0235; s. 796.03; s. 800.04; s. 825.1025(2)(b); s. 827.071; or s. 847.0145; or a violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction, and the offender has previously been convicted of or found to have committed, or has pled nolo contendere or guilty to, regardless of adjudication, any violation of s. 787.01, s. 787.02, or s. 787.025, where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim’s parent; s. 794.011(2), (3), (4), (5), or (8); s. 794.05; s. 796.03; s. 800.04; s. 825.1025; s. 827.071; s. 847.0133; s. 847.0135; or s. 847.0145, or a violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction.
§ 775.21(4)(a)(l), Fla. Stat. (2002). (emphasis supplied).
Appellant contends that the statute does not apply to him because he is the parent of the victim. Appellant cites the emphasized language and argues that the statute is, at a minimum, ambiguous. We disagree. Appellant was convicted of violating section 800.04(5)(a)(b), Florida Statutes, and section 800.04(7)(a)(b), Florida Statutes. The limitation to which Appellant refers does not apply to these offenses. Rather, it only applies when the defendant is convicted of violating sections 787.01, 787.02 or 787.025 of the Florida Statutes, which relate to kidnaping, false imprisonment and luring of a child, respectively.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, C.J., and PALMER, J., concur.