HENRY BOYER, III, 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.
Boyer appeals the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.800(a) postconviction motion challenging his sexual predator designation. The First District affirmed, holding that a sexual predator designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment and therefore cannot be challenged in a Rule 3.800(a) motion, though it may be challenged in a separate civil suit for injunctive or declaratory relief.
A sexual predator designation is neither a punishment nor a sentence within the meaning of Rule 3.800(a) and therefore cannot be challenged in a postconviction motion. An appellant may challenge an erroneous sexual predator designation only in a separate civil suit seeking injunctive or declaratory relief.
[1] A sexual predator designation is not a punishment or a sentence and does not render a sentence illegal for the purposes of a rule 3.800(a) motion.
[2] A defendant cannot challenge a sexual predator designation in a postconviction motion but must file a separate civil suit seeking injunctive or declaratory relief.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A sexual predator designation is neither a punishment nor a sentence and does not render a sentence illegal as the term is used in rule 3.800(a).”
Establishes the core holding that sexual predator designations fall outside the scope of Rule 3.800(a) challenges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoyer pled no contest to two counts of lewd and lascivious acts and agreed to be sentenced as a sexual predator. He was sentenced to 10 years' impriso…
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 Certified Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMAS, J.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s partial denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because Appellant’s claim may not be raised in a postconviction motion, we affirm.
Appellant pled no contest to two counts of lewd and lascivious acts, agreed to be sentenced as a sexual predator,, and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment followed by 8 years of sex offender probation. Appellant filed a rule 3.800(a) motion alleging that his sentence was illegal because he did not have a necessary predicate offense to be sentenced as a sexual predator, and sexual offender probation did not exist at the time of his sentencing. The trial court denied Appellant’s first claim on the basis that the sexual predator designation was negotiated, and granted Appellant’s second claim on the basis that it was not orally pronounced at sentencing. Appellant now appeals the denial of his first claim.
' Rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, permits the trial court to correct an illegal sentence. Any error here does not constitute an illegal sentence, however, because the alleged error involves Appellant’s designation as a sexual predator. A sexual predator designation is neither a punishment nor a sentence and does not render a sentence illegal as the term is used-in rule 3.800(a).
See Gonzalez v. State, 808 So. 2d 1265 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (quoting Fletcher v. State, 699 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)); Walker v. State, 718 So. 2d 217, 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); see also Freeland v. State, 832 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding that the registration and reporting requirements of the Sexual Predator Act are “regulatory and procedural in nature and do not violate the ex post facto clause.”).
Consequently, Appellant cannot challenge his designation as a sexual predator in a postconviction motion but must instead file a separate civil suit seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. See Saintelien v. State, 937 So. 2d 234, 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citing Connor v. State, 773 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)).
The Second District recently receded from its prior precedent that an appellant can challenge his or her erroneous designation as a sexual predator only in a separate civil action. King v. State, 911 So. 2d 229, 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)(en banc).
In King, the Second District certified conflict with the Fourth District and aligned itself with the Fifth District’s approach in Nicholson v. State, 846 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), and Cabrera v. State, 884 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), permitting an appellant to challenge an erroneous sexual predator designation in a rule 3.800(a) motion. Id. The Second District reasoned that it had incorrectly applied a constitutional provision in a procedural context and that challenging a sexual predator designation in a separate civil suit had proven to be unworkable. Id. at 233.
Whether a civil suit is the most workable solution is not the question presented here. Permitting Appellant to challenge his designation in a rule 3.800(a) motion requires us to ignore prior precedent holding that a designation is not a sentence or a punishment. We believe the better rationale, and consistent with our prior holdings, is to follow the Fourth District and hold that Appellant may challenge an erroneous sexual predator designation in a separate civil suit for injunctive or declaratory relief, but not in a postconviction motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion, without prejudice to file a separate civil suit, and we certify conflict with King v. State, 911 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)(en banc), and Kidd v. State, 855 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). See Connor v. State, 773 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Brown v. State, 927 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Saintelien, 937 So. 2d at 234; Dragon v. State, 937 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
WOLF and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Renoit Saintelien v. State, 990 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008)…e 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence filed in criminal court. See Saintelien v. State, 937 So. 2d 234, 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (requiring sexual predator designation challenges to be raised in separate civil proceedings); Boyer v. State, 946 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (same); contra King v. State, 911 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (permitting such challenges to be raised in criminal postcon-viction proceedings); Kidd v. State, 855 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (same).1 We resolve this confli…1 / 2
-
Hilton Allen v. State, 988 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…or amended notice of appeal from the order designating him a sexual predator. Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Appellant’s remedy is to file a separate civil action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Boyer v. State, 946 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
-
Alvarez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (16 total)
- Fletcher v. State, 699 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- King v. State, 911 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Cabrera v. State, 884 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Moreland Nicholson v. State, 846 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Kidd v. State, 855 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Brown v. State, 927 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Connor v. State, 773 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Gonzalez v. State, 808 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Lynn Strickland/GCR Truck Tire Ctr. & Gallagher-Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Pike, 718 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Walker v. State, 718 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)