WILLIAM TYRONE EALUM, 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.
William Tyrone Ealum challenges his designation as a sexual predator following his plea to three counts of lewd or lascivious exhibition. The court reversed the trial court's designation order because it was entered without notice, without a hearing, and without a determination of whether Ealum had prior qualifying convictions required by statute.
The designation order was improper and must be reversed. For second-degree felony violations of § 800.04, a prior conviction for one of the crimes specified by statute is required before sexual predator designation. Because there was no evidence of prior qualifying convictions and no hearing was held, the case must be remanded for a proper hearing with notice to allow the state to demonstrate qualification and allow Ealum to contest the designation.
[1] A sexual predator designation requires a prior conviction for a qualifying offense when the underlying violation is a second-degree felony.
[2] A sexual predator designation order entered without notice or a hearing is improper.
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“Where, as here, the violation of section 800.04 is a second-degree felony, appellant must have a prior conviction for one of the crimes specified by the statute before he can be designated a sexual predator.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for sexual predator designation in second-degree felony cases under § 800.04
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEalum pled nolo contendere to three counts of lewd or lascivious exhibition, second-degree felonies under § 800.04(7). He was sentenced to two years i…
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.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s order designating him a sexual predator. We have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(1)(D). State v. Robinson, 873 So. 2d 1205, 1208-09 (Fla.2004). Because the state properly concedes error, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to three counts of lewd or lascivious exhibition, which are second-degree felonies. § 800.04(7), Fla. Stat. (2004). After appellant was adjudicated and sentenced to two years in prison, followed by eight years of probation, the state filed a motion for entry of an order designating appellant a sexual predator, pursuant to section 775.21(4), Florida Statutes (2004).
However, the state’s motion did not mention whether appellant had any prior convictions.
The trial court entered an order the same day as the state’s motion, designating appellant a sexual predator. Where, as here, the violation of section 800.04 is a second-degree felony, appellant must have a prior conviction for one of the crimes specified by the statute before he can be designated a sexual predator. § 775.21(4)(a)l.b, Fla. Stat. (2004). There is no evidence in the record below that appellant had any prior convictions.
Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court improperly designated him a sexual predator. Appellant failed to assert this argument below.
However, appellant had no opportunity to assert his position in the trial court because the order of designation was entered the same day that the state’s motion was filed. Appellant had no notice of the motion seeking sexual predator designation, and the designation was made without a hearing.
Additionally, the trial court never made a determination of whether appellant had prior qualifying convictions. As such, this case is indistinguishable from Nicholas v. State, 844 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (reversing and remanding where the appellant pled no contest to lewd and lascivious assault pursuant to section 800.04, Florida Statutes, a second-degree felony, and the trial court’s order designating the appellant a sexual predator was entered without notice and without a hearing, and the appellant argued on appeal that he had no prior qualifying offenses).
Because we agree with Nicholas, we reverse the trial court’s order designating appellant a sexual predator, and remand for a hearing upon proper notice, allowing the state to demonstrate by competent evidence that appellant is qualified for the designation, and to allow appellant to contest that designation. See id. at 827.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
BARFIELD, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lester v. State, 20 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ion and his designation as a sexual predator. We affirm his conviction and sentence without discussion. However, we reverse his designation as a sexual predator because he does not meet the criteria for such a designation. See, e.g., Ealum v. State, 943 So. 2d 994, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Hickey v. State, 915 So. 2d 663, 663-64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); State v. Bouchil-lon, 882 So. 2d 412, 412-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). On remand, the trial court shall vacate the order designating the Appellant a sexual predator.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Robinson, 873 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004)
- Nicholas v. State, 844 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)