CHARLES E. SAGE, 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 Florida Sexual Predator Act is constitutional and does not violate procedural due process rights.
Charles E. Sage pled no contest to lewd and lascivious molestation and was classified as a sexual predator. He challenged this designation via a motio…
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 Procedural Due Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Charles E. Sage pled no contest to lewd and lascivious molestation. Post-sentencing, the trial court entered an order classifying Sage as a sexual predator, which designation Sage challenged via a rule 3.850 motion.1 Sage now appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion. We affirm.
Sage seeks to have his sexual predator designation removed, arguing that the Florida Sexual Predator Act is unconstitutional and violates his procedural due process rights. For support, he relies upon the opinion of the Third District Court in Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), review granted sub nom. Milks v. State, 881 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.2004), which held that the Florida Sexual Predator Act is unconstitutional as it violates procedural due process.
However, contrary to Sage’s position and Espindola, this court has held that the Florida Sexual Predator Act is constitutional and does not violate a defendant’s procedural due process rights. Rickman v. State, 871 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Recently, in Moran v. State, 888 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), this court followed Rickman and certified conflict with Espindola. See also Cabrera v. State, 884 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (same).
Accordingly, we affirm. Again, we certify conflict with Espindola.
AFFIRM and CERTIFY CONFLICT.
SAWAYA, C.J, GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur. . Sage actually filed his motion pursuant to rule 3.800(a), but the trial court elected to treat it as one filed pursuant to rule 3.850.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooks v. State, 969 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2007)…at prisoner petitions as if the proper remedy were sought if it would be in the interest of justice to do so” and finding that the "[trial court] should have treated Hall’s [3.800] motion as if filed pursuant to rule 3.850”); see also Sage v. State, 890 So. 2d 1277, 1277 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (noting that the trial court treated Sage’s 3.800(a) motion seeking removal of his sexual predator status as a motion filed under 3.850); Nesbitt v. State, 884 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("Because the motion d…
Authorities Cited
- Ferman Carlos Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Cabrera v. State, 884 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- State v. Laban Jasper Earwood, 871 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Mora v. State, 881 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2004)
- Moran v. State, 888 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)