REGINALD SWINDLE, 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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court's reversal of Espindola, the court affirms the denial of Swindle's Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion, holding that the Florida Sexual Predators Act does not violate procedural due process.
The Florida Sexual Predators Act does not violate procedural due process, and therefore the denial of a Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion challenging the Act must be affirmed.
[1] The Florida Sexual Predators Act does not violate procedural due process and does not entitle a defendant to post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSwindle sought post-conviction relief under Rule 3.850, challenging the constitutionality of the Florida Sexual Predators Act on procedural due proces…
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 Florida Sexual Predators Act cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Judge.
ON REMAND
This case stems from the summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief and is before us on remand from the Florida Supreme Court. Relying on Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), where this court found the Florida Sexual Predators Act unconstitutional on procedural due process grounds, this court reversed the denial of Swindle’s 3.850 motion and certified conflict with Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), in which the Second District rejected a similar procedural due process challenge to the same act. See Swindle v. State, 919 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
The Florida Supreme Court, finding that the Act does not violate procedural due process, has now reversed Espindola, quashed our earlier decision based on that case, and remanded this matter for reconsideration in light of that reversal. See Milks v. State, 894 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2005) (holding that the Florida Sexual Predators Act does not violate procedural due process); State v. Swindle, 923 So. 2d 456 (Fla.2006) (quashing Swindle v. State, 919 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), and remanding for reconsideration). We therefore substitute this opinion affirming in all respects the order denying Swindle’s motion for post-conviction relief for our earlier decision in Swindle v. State, 919 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
Accordingly, the order denying Swindle’s Rule 3.850 motion is in all respects affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sachs, 948 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 2007)…PER CURIAM. We have for review State v. Sachs, 926 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), in which the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling based upon the parties’ stipulation at the trial level as to the controlling effect of State v. Harden, 873 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), aff'd, 938 S…
Authorities Cited
- Ferman Carlos Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Milks v. State, 894 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2005)
- Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Swindle v. State, 919 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Lewis Y. and Betty T. Ward v. Brown, 919 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- State v. Swindle, 923 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2006)
- Gambone v. Schiller A. Bazan, Jr., 923 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2006)