KENNETH JAMES KENDRICK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2004-03-19
No. 2D03-1639
FULMER and STRINGER, JJ„ concur.
868 So. 2d 654 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2004) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Sexual Predator Designation Due Process

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sexual Predator Designation cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
SILBERMAN, Judge.

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Kenneth James Kendrick appeals from his resentencing for attempted sexual battery with a deadly weapon. Kendrick challenges his designation as a sexual predator, claiming that he did not qualify for the designation. Kendrick also challenges the constitutionality of the sexual predator statute on due process grounds, relying on Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Kendrick acknowledges that Espindola conflicts with this court’s decision in Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 859 So. 2d 514 (Fla.2003).

Neither of Kendrick’s arguments supports reversal. First, Kendrick qualifies for the sexual predator designation under section 775.21(4)(a)(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), because his offense is an attempt of a life felony under chapter 794, Florida Statutes. See § 794.011(3), Fla. Stat. (1993). Second, we reject Kendrick’s due process challenge based on our decision in Milks and certify conflict with Espindola.

Affirmed; conflict certified.

FULMER and STRINGER, JJ„ concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Javarus Morgan v. State, 911 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
    …y that the Jimmy Ryce Act could be applied to him, even if counsel had failed to do so, the defendant would not be entitled to relief. Defense counsel is not required to inform a client about the collateral consequences of his plea, Wilson v. State, 868 So. 2d 654, 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), and the application of the Jimmy Ryce Act is a collateral consequence of a plea. Watrous v. State, 793 So. 2d 6, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The defendant’s final argument is that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistan…
  • Bain v. State, 9 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
    …a. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Wright v. State, 711 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)). However, the “ ‘[application of the doctrine [of laches] often involves factual issues that are not properly resolved without an evidentiary hearing.’ ” Wilson v. State, 868 So. 2d 654, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (first alternation in original) (quoting Love v. State, 814 So. 2d 475, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)); see also Omasta v. State, 805 So. 2d 846, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that evidentiary hearing was required to [*725] deter…
  • Hillfiger v. State, 248 So. 3d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw