STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JULIUS DESHONDRA SAMUELS, 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 State appealed a trial court's order removing the sex offender registration requirement from Julius Samuels' sentence for lewd and lascivious battery on a child. The appellate court reversed, holding that Samuels did not qualify for relief under Florida's "Romeo and Juliet" law because he exceeded the four-year age differential limitation by one day.
Samuels did not qualify for removal of the registration requirement because he exceeded the four-year age differential by one day (four years, one month, and 21 days versus the statutory four-year limit), making him ineligible to petition for relief under section 943.04354.
[1] A person is ineligible to petition for removal of the sexual offender registration requirement if the age difference between the person and the victim exceeds the statuto…
[2] Florida's "Romeo and Juliet" law provides for removal of sexual offender registration requirements only under specific circumstances, including an age difference between…
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“If a defendant is one day past the four-year eligibility limit prescribed by section 943.04354 of the Florida Statutes, he is ineligible to petition for relief.”
Establishes the bright-line rule that the four-year age differential requirement is strictly construed with no flexibility.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuels pled nolo contendere to committing lewd and lascivious battery on a child 14 years old. At the time of the offense, Samuels was 18 years old, …
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 Nolo Contendere Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s order granting Julius Samuels’ motion to remove the sentencing requirement that he register as a sex offender. Determining that the trial court erred in granting the motion, we reverse.
Samuels pled nolo contendere to one count of committing a lewd and lascivious battery on a child 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age, in violation of section 800.04(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2009). He was sentenced to a term of thirty months in the Department of Corrections and was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 943.0435 of the Florida Statutes (2009).
Samuels filed a motion pursuant to rule 3.180(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure arguing that he is exempt from the sexual offender registration requirement under section 943.04354 of the Florida Statutes (2009), commonly referred to as Florida’s Romeo and Juliet law. The statute provides:
943.04354 Removal of the requirement to register as a sexual offender or sexual predator in special circumstances.—
(1) For purposes of this section, a person shall be considered for removal of the requirement to register as a sexual offender or sexual predator only if the person:
(a) Was or will be convicted or adjudicated delinquent of a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, or s. 847.0135(5) or the person committed a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, or s. 847.0135(5) for which adjudication of guilt was or will be withheld, and the person does not have any other conviction, adjudication of delinquency, or withhold of adjudication of guilt for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, or s. 847.0135(5);
(b) Is required to register as a sexual offender or sexual predator solely on the basis of this violation; and
(c) Is not more than U years older than the victim of this violation who was H years of age or older but not more than 17 years of age at the time the person committed this violation.
(Emphasis added).
The trial court granted the motion, concluding that Samuels had demonstrated that section 943.04354 was applicable to his case since the victim was 14 years old and Samuels was 18 years old at the time of the offense. We disagree. The information in this case shows that the actual difference in age between Samuel and the victim at the time of the offense was four years, one month, and 21 days. “If a defendant is one day past the four-year eligibility limit prescribed by section 943.04354 of the Florida Statutes, he is 00ineligible to petition for relief.” State v. Marcel, 67 So.3d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA *11112011) (citing State v. Faulk, 200 N.C.App. 118, 683 S.E.2d 265 (2009)).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
MONACO and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Welch, 94 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ctim. See State v. Marcel, 67 So. 3d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (determining that the defendant did not meet the requirement of section 943.04354(l)(c) when he was four years, three months, and eight days older than the victim); State v. Samuels, 76 So. 3d 1109, 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (determining that the defendant did not meet the requirement of section 943.04354(l)(c) when he was four years, one month, and twenty-one days older than the victim). We recognize that both Marcel and Samuels were decided…
-
State v. Rudolfo Caragol, 120 So. 3d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…3, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“In order to qualify for removal of the registration requirement, appellant had to establish he was ‘not more than 4 years older than the victim’ pursuant to section 943.04354(l)(c), Florida Statutes.”); State v. Samuels, 76 So. 3d 1109, 1110-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (determining that the defendant was not entitled to removal because he was four years, one month, and twenty-one days older than the victim and therefore did not meet the requirement of section 943.04354(1)(c)); State v.…
-
Vann v. State, 99 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…plain language of the statute, we conclude the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion because appellant was four years, three months, and ten days older than the victim. See State v. Welch, 94 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); State v. Samuels, 76 So. 3d 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); State v. Marcel, 67 So. 3d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). AFFIRMED. PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Marcel, 67 So. 3d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)