JOSE R. GARCIA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Garcia appeals an order denying his motion to declare Florida's Sexual Offender Registration Act unconstitutional on due process grounds. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the Act's registration requirements are constitutional because they are based on the fact of prior conviction, not current dangerousness, and do not require a hearing to determine danger to the public.
The Act does not violate procedural due process because registration requirements are based on the fact of prior conviction, not current dangerousness, making a hearing to contest dangerousness immaterial to the statutory scheme. The Act also does not violate substantive due process rights.
[1] The Florida Sexual Offender Registration Act's requirements are based on the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness.
[2] Due process does not require a hearing to determine current dangerousness when statutory requirements for registration flow from the fact of a previous conviction.
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“the Florida Legislature has decided that the [Florida Sexual Predator] Act's designation, registration, and public-notification requirements, as well as the Act's other provisions, such as its employment restrictions, "shall be based on the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness."”
Establishes that registration is based on prior conviction, not current threat assessment, making a dangerousness hearing unnecessary
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarcia, a registered sexual offender, challenged the constitutionality of Florida's Sexual Offender Registration Act (section 943.0435). He sought a d…
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 Sex Offender Registration cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Judge.
Jose R. Garcia appeals from an order denying his motion to declare the Florida Sexual Offender Registration Act, section 943.0435, Florida Statutes (2003), unconstitutional on due process grounds. We affirm.
Garcia claims that the Act denies him procedural due process because the registration requirements of section 943.0435 fail to provide for a hearing to determine whether he presents a danger to the public sufficient to require registration. We disagree. The Florida Supreme Court has already rejected an identical claim with respect to the registration requirements of the Florida Sexual Predator Act, a resolution which we believe to be equally applicable here:
[T]he Florida Legislature has decided that the [Florida Sexual Predator] Act’s designation, registration, and public-notification requirements, as well as the Act’s other provisions, such as its employment restrictions, “shall be based on the fact of previous conviction, not the fact of current dangerousness.” To provide [defendants] with hearings at which they could contest the fact of current dangerousness would be pointless. Even if they could prove that they present absolutely no threat to the public safety, the Act would still require that they be designated as “sexual predators,” that they register, and that the public be notified.... “[D]ue process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact [here, that one is not dangerous] that is not material to the State’s statutory scheme.” The only material fact under Florida’s statutory scheme, ... is the fact of a previous conviction-all of the burdens imposed by the Act, from the designation as a “sexual predator” to the registration and public-notification requirements to the employment restrictions, flow from the fact of a previous conviction-and [defendants required to register have] received “a procedurally safeguarded opportunity” to contest that fact. That is all that procedural due process requires.
Milks v. State, 894 So. 2d 924, 927-28 (Fla.2005) (citations and footnotes omitted); see Navarro v. State, 888 So. 2d 144, 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)(finding no.merit to a due process challenge to section 943.0435).
We also reject Garcia’s arguments that this provision violates his substantive due process rights and adopt the analysis set forth in Doe v. Moore, 410 F. 3d 1337 (11th Cir.2005), rejecting a substantive due process attack on the registration and public notification requirements of the Florida Sexual Offender Registration Act. See Hanson v. State, 905 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)(adopting and applying the Moore court’s substantive due process analysis to the Sexual Predator Act, section 775.21).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Subido, 925 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…93 (Fla.2005); Linderman v. State, 884 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Johnson v. State, 875 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Martin v. State, 864 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Miller v. State, 861 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Garcia v. State, 909 So. 2d 971, 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Smith v. State, 871 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Doe v. Moore, 410 F. 3d 1337 (11th Cir.2005). Subido’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), but…
-
Butler v. State, 923 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…d and to take any appropriate precautions. Id. Thus, the court held that the Sex Offender Act was rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from criminal activity. Id. at 1345-46. See also Garcia v. State, 909 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). The fifth district relied on the reasoning of Doe and applied it to the registration requirements of the sexual predator statute in Hanson v. State, 905 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Although in the present case Butler also a…
Authorities Cited
- Milks v. State, 894 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2005)
- DOE v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)
- Hanson v. State, 905 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Nery E. Navajero v. State, 888 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)