RONALD L. FOX, 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.
Ronald Fox appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion challenging his guilty plea to failing to register as a sex offender. Fox argued his plea was unintelligent because his Michigan conviction did not require registration under Florida law, but the court affirmed, finding Fox was properly classified as a sexual offender under Florida statute based on Michigan's registration requirements.
The court held that Fox was properly designated as a sexual offender under Florida law because he was designated as a sexual offender in Michigan and was required to register there, satisfying the definition in section 943.0435(1)(a)(1)(b). Therefore, Fox's plea was knowingly and intelligently entered, and his post-conviction motion failed.
[1] A conviction in another state for an offense that requires registration as a sex offender in that state subjects an individual to Florida's sex offender registration requ…
[2] An individual convicted of an attempt to commit certain enumerated sexual offenses in Michigan is subject to Michigan's Sex Offenders Registration Act.
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“Mr. Fox is a "sexual offender" under section 943.0435(l)(a)(l)(b), because he "has been designated as a ... sexual offender ... in another state or jurisdiction and was, as a result of such designation, subjected to registration ... or would be if the person were a resident of that state or jurisdiction."”
Establishes the statutory basis for Fox's classification as a sexual offender in Florida based on his Michigan designation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFox pleaded guilty on May 4, 2012, to failing to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to approximately two years and ten months in prison. In …
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 Offender Registration Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Ronald L. Fox appeals the postconviction court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the postconviction court’s order.
Mr. Fox pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender on May 4, 2012, and was sentenced to two years, ten months, and twenty-nine days in prison. Thereafter, Mr. Fox filed a rule 3.850 motion, claiming that his plea was unintelligently entered because the Michigan conviction upon which his failure to register as a sexual offender charge was based is not a conviction that required him to register as a sexual offender under section 943.0435, Florida Statutes (2011), and that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known he was not required to register.
Mr. Fox is a “sexual offender” under section 943.0435(l)(a)(l)(b), because he “has been designated as a ... sexual offender ... in another state or jurisdiction and was, as a result of such designation, subjected to registration ... or would be if the person were a resident of that state or jurisdiction.” On July 25, 1997, Mr. Fox pleaded guilty to violating section 750.520(e), Michigan Compiled Laws (1995), Attempted Criminal Sexual Con-duet-4th Degree, and was sentenced to twenty-four months of probation. Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act requires individuals convicted of a listed offense after October 1, 1995, to register as a convicted sex offender. Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.723 (1995). Section 28.722(d)(iv) defines listed offense as a “violation of section 520b, 520c, 520d, 520e, or 520g of Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being sections 750.520b, 750.520c, 750.520d, 750.520e, and 750.520g of the Michigan Compiled Laws” or an attempt to commit one of the described offenses.
(Emphasis added.) Mr. Fox was required to register for twenty-five years under Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act, and he would be required to register if he lived there today. See § 28.725(3). Thus, Mr. Fox is required to register as a sexual offender under section 943.0435(l)(a)(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2011). See Moore v. State, 992 So.2d 862, 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (holding proof that a defendant was required to register as a sex offender in Michigan satisfied the sexual offender element of section 943.0435).
Because Mr. Fox is required to register as a sexual offender under section 943.0435(l)(a)(l)(b), he failed to establish that his guilty plea was unknowingly entered.
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ„ Concur.