THOMAS ALAN SIGLER, 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 held that the defendant's sexual predator designation was valid and the Florida Sexual Predator Act is constitutional.
The defendant appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging his sexual predator status. He argued the designat…
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
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Sigler (defendant) appeals the summary denial of what the trial court properly deemed to be a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.1 He challenges his “sexual predator” status. We affirm.
The defendant first contends that his sexual predator designation must be stricken pursuant to State v. Robinson, 873 So. 2d 1205 (Fla.2004). In Robinson, the Supreme Court issued a narrow holding that the designation as a sexual predator violates the defendant’s right to due process of law in situations where the defendant is not convicted of an offense involving a sexual act. The Robinson case is inapplicable here because this case involves a conviction for forcing or enticing a child to commit a lewd, lascivious, or indecent act; clearly, an offense that involves a sexual act.
Next, the defendant asserts that the Florida Sexual Predator Act is facially unconstitutional as being violative of procedural due process, citing to Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). However, this court, as well as all of the other district courts, have disagreed with Espindola and certified conflict therewith. See Frazier v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D369, 2004 WL 221043, — So. 2d - (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.6, 2004); Martin v. State, 864 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Reyes v. State, 854 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 859 So. 2d 514 (Fla.2003).
We therefore affirm and once again certify conflict with Espindola.
AFFIRMED.
PALMER, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur. . See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kensler v. State, 890 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…of grieving one’s claim is via a motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. See Smeltz v. State, 818 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accord Szuch v. State, 780 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). But see Sigler v. State, 877 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Nicholson v. State, 846 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In dismissing appellant’s 3.850 motion for the reason that it was procedurally barred, the lower court specifically relied on Collie v. State, 710 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DC…
Authorities Cited
- Ferman Carlos Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Reyes v. State, 854 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- State v. Robinson, 873 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)
- Martin v. State, 864 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)