HENRY HEMHERD, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Smith v. State, 871 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
  …on of [*297] “sex offenders,” is unconstitutional on the ground that it denies procedural due process. Appellant’s argument is without merit. We have recently rejected the same constitutional challenge both under section 943.0435, see Ames v. State, 870 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA March 11, 2004), and under section 775.21, Florida’s sexual predator law. See Frazier v. State, - — • So. 2d-, 2004 WL 221043, 29 Fla. Law Weekly D369 (Fla. 1st DCA, February 6, 2004), and cases cited therein. For purposes of appellant…
• Leonicio D. Robinson v. State, 871 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
  …PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Ames v. State, 870 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). KAHN, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.…
• Cheshire v. State, 969 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
  …t has held that a jury trial sufficiently protects a sexual predator’s procedural due process rights regarding his designation, a sexual predator does not normally have any argument to raise in response to the court’s designation. See Ames v. State, 870 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Milks v. State, 894 So. 2d 924, 926-28 (Fla.2005) (rejecting appellants’ argument that their procedural due process rights were violated when they were not given the opportunity to argue they did not present a current dange…

Authorities Cited

• Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2004)
• Hartline v. State, 806 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)