JOHN D. NEWELL, 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.
John D. Newell appealed his conviction for failing to register as a sexual offender under Florida law, challenging the constitutionality of the registration statute on procedural and substantive due process grounds. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, rejecting both due process challenges as previously rejected by other courts and unsupported by meaningful legal analysis.
The statute does not violate procedural or substantive due process. The procedural due process challenge was rejected consistent with prior appellate decisions, and the substantive due process challenge was rejected because the statute must be construed as including a knowledge requirement, as held by the Florida Supreme Court.
[1] A statute requiring sexual offender registration and notification of residence changes does not violate procedural due process.
[2] A statute requiring sexual offender registration and notification of residence changes must be construed to include a knowledge requirement to satisfy substantive due pro…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“All statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of demonstrating that it is invalid.”
Establishes the legal standard applicable to constitutional challenges to statutes and places the burden on the appellant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn February 2002, Newell was charged with failure to register as a sexual offender under section 943.0435, Florida Statutes, which requires convicted …
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 Offender Registration Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
John D. Newell appeals his conviction and sentence for failing to comply with the sexual offender registration requirements contained in section 943.0435, Florida Statutes (2000). We affirm.
In February 2002, Newell was charged with failure to register as a sexual offender. Among other things, section 943.0435 requires a convicted sexual offender to register and provide specific information to law enforcement and to notify law enforcement of any change in residence. Newell filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that section 943.0435 is unconstitutional on procedural due process grounds. After the trial court denied the motion, Newell entered a no contest plea while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion. On appeal, Newell argues that section 943.0435 violates procedural and substantive due process requirements.1
Procedural due process challenges to section 943.0435 have previously been rejected by this court and other district courts of appeal. See Givens v. State, 851 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Dejesus v. State, 862 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Johnson v. State, 795 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying Newell’s motion to dismiss as to procedural due process.
Concerning substantive due process, Newell argues that section 943.0435 improperly lacks any requirement of guilty knowledge, scienter, or mens rea. The Florida Supreme Court rejected this argument in State v. Giorgetti, 868 So. 2d 512 (Fla.2004), and held that section 943.0435 must be construed as including a knowledge requirement.
Newell also makes a generalized attack on section 943.0435 without providing any significant analysis or citation to legal authority. Under established principles, “[a]ll statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of demonstrating that it is invalid.” Hudson v. State, 825 So. 2d 460, 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Butler, 770 So. 2d 1210, 1214 (Fla.2000). Newell’s conclusory argument demonstrates no basis for reversal.
Accordingly, we affirm Newell’s conviction and sentence.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and DAVIS, J. Concur. . Newell’s counsel initially filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The brief discussed in an abbreviated manner procedural and substantive due process issues and concluded that there is no basis for reversal. We ordered the parties to provide supplemental merits briefs addressing procedural and substantive due process.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.M.H. v. D.M.T., 79 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…advanced any coherent legal theory, analysis or argument in support of these constitutional claims. As such, there is no basis to reverse the trial court’s order based upon a constitutional challenge to section 742.14. Id.; see also Newell v. State, 875 So. 2d 747, 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reciting general rule that the party challenging a statute has the burden of establishing its invalidity, and rejecting without analysis constitutional challenge to statute where “conclusory argument demonstrate[d] no basis…
-
Dante Martin v. State, 207 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…The defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof by not demonstrating how his conduct during the crossings was protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, he cites no authority supporting his overbreadth as-applied claim. See Newell v. State, 875 So. 2d 747, [*317] 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (rejecting constitutional challenge where defendant made only a generalized attack on the sexual offender registration statute, “without providing any significant analysis or citation to legal authority”). As for his…
-
Krampert v. State, 13 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ubsequent failure to comply are necessary before a conviction under [the sexual offender registration statutes] can stand.’” Id. at 520 (quoting Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 229, 78 S.Ct. 240, 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1957)); see also Newell v. State, 875 So. 2d 747, 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Giorgetti for the proposition “that section 943.0435 must be construed as including a knowledge requirement”). Similar to section 943.0435, section 775.21 does not express any intent to remove knowledge as an element…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. McCORMICK, 868 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2004)
- Hudson v. State, 825 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Tyjuan Wilbert Johnson v. State, 795 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Butler, 770 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 2000)
- Givens v. State, 851 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- DeJESUS v. State, 862 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)