ANTHONY J. WHITE, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's order declaring the defendant a sexual predator, finding the statute constitutional.
The defendant appealed an order declaring him a sexual predator under the Florida Sexual Predators Act, arguing it violated procedural due process and…
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 Florida Sexual Predators Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals an order that rejected his argument that section 775.21(6), Fla. Stat. (2001), “The Florida Sexual Predators Act,” is unconstitutional and declared him to be a sexual predator. He argues that the trial court erred in its declaration because the statute fails to afford him procedural due process and im-permissibly intrudes on his privacy interests. This court has recently resolved those issues contrary to the defendant’s position. See Reyes v. State, 854 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We therefore affirm.
WARNER, MAY, JJ., and ARAMONY, SUSAN, Assoc. Judge, concur. ON MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
We grant the defendant’s motion for certification. We certify that this decision directly and expressly conflicts with the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) on the issue of the constitutionality of the Florida Sexual Predators Act (FSPA).
WARNER, MAY, JJ., and ARAMONY, SUSAN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Demick v. State, 871 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. As we have held before, the Florida Sexual Predators Act, does not deny procedural due process under the Florida Constitution. White v. State, 866 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), Reyes v. State, 854 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), Jones v. State, 855 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). See also Therrien v. State, 859 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Martin v. State, 864 So. 2d 589, 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Gi…
-
Smith v. State, 876 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. As we have held before, the Florida Sexual Predators Act does not deny procedural due process under the Florida Constitution. See e.g. White v. State, 866 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), Reyes v. State, 854 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm the order denying relief and again certify conflict with Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). FARMER, C.J., STEVENSON and HAZOURI, J…
Authorities Cited
- Ferman Carlos Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Reyes v. State, 854 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)