CHARLES THOMAS EDWARDS BISH, 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.
Charles Thomas Edwards Bish appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief motion challenging his conviction for failing to register as a sexual offender. The court reversed, finding that Bish was not required to register under Florida law because he was a juvenile offender adjudicated before July 1, 2007, and therefore could not be convicted of the offense.
Bish was not required to register as a sexual offender under section 943.0435(1)(a)(1)(d) because he was a juvenile adjudicated in 1992, before the July 1, 2007 cutoff date. Therefore, he could not have been convicted of failing to register, and the postconviction court erred in denying his motion.
[1] A person adjudicated delinquent for a sexual offense as a juvenile in 1992 is not required to register as a sexual offender under section 943.0435(1)(a)(1)(d), Florida St…
[2] A conviction for failing to register as a sexual offender is invalid if the defendant was not legally required to register.
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“Because Bish was not required to register as a sexual offender under section 943.0435, Florida Statutes (2009), we reverse the postconviction court's order and remand for the court to vacate Bish's judgment and sentence.”
Establishes the core holding that Bish was not subject to the registration requirement and therefore the conviction must be vacated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBish was adjudicated delinquent for child rape in Washington in 1992 at age seventeen and was required to register as a sexual offender. He moved to F…
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 Sex Offender Registration cases and more on FLexlaw
Charles Thomas Edwards Bish appeals the final order, entered after an evidentia-ry hearing, that denies his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, Bish raised three grounds for relief that challenged his conviction for failing to register as a sexual offender. Because Bish was not required to register as a sexual offender under section 943.0435, Florida Statutes (2009), we reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for the court to vacate Bish’s judgment and sentence.
On October 23, 1992, Bish, who was seventeen at the time, was adjudicated delinquent for the offense of child rape in Washington and was required to register as a sexual offender. In 1997, Bish moved to Florida and registered as a sexual offender. He continued to register until 2009. In 2010, he was arrested for failing to register as a sexual offender from March 1, 2010, through April 15, 2010. Based on advice from counsel, he pleaded guilty and was placed on five years’ probation. On October 25, 2011, after violating probation, the circuit court revoked his probation and sentenced him to thirty months’ prison.
In his postconviction motion, Bish alleged that he was not required to register *452as a sexual offender because he was a juvenile at the time of the crime and, thus, could not be convicted of failing to register as a sexual offender under section 943.0435(1)(a)(1)(d). He argues that counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty to a crime he could not have committed. In support of his motion, Bish attached a copy of a Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) letter dated March 29, 2012. In the letter, the FDLE cited State v. Williams, 75 So.3d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), and informed Bish that he was no longer required to register as a sexual offender and that his name had been removed from the registry. The postconviction court held a hearing on Bish’s motion and denied it on January 23, 2013.
We agree with the First District that only subparagraph d of section 943.0435(1)(a)(1) applies to juvenile offenders. Williams, 75 So.3d at 433. Here, although Bish was seventeen when he was adjudicated delinquent in Washington, he was not adjudicated on or after July 1, 2007, but in 1992. The State concedes that the postconviction court erred when it denied Bish’s motion because Bish was not required to register as a sexual offender. See Acevedo v. State, 108 So.3d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Therefore, we reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for the court to vacate Bish’s judgment and sentence.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
ALTENBERND and KHOUZAM, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Q.A. v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…er section 943.0435(1)(a)1.d, Florida Statutes (2014), a juvenile under the age of fourteen at the time of the commission of the qualifying offense is not subject to the registration and reporting requirements under the statute. E.g., Bish v. State, 139 So. 3d 451, 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Acevedo v. State, 108 So. 3d 719, 720 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Thus, we reverse the disposition order and remand for entry of a proper adjudication order. REVERSED and REMANDED. EVANDER, C.J., COHEN, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Williams, 75 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Acevedo v. State, 108 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)