TIMOTHY CONLEY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2021-07-30
No. 21-0389
Nardella, J., Cohen, J., Eisnaugle, J., Howard, Richard A.
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2021)

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.

Holding

A defendant convicted of kidnapping with intent to commit or facilitate a felony against a minor qualifies for sexual predator designation under section 775.21(4)(a)1.a without requiring a prior enumerated conviction. The trial court's denial of the postconviction motion was affirmed under the tipsy coachman doctrine because the sexual predator designation was lawful based on the kidnapping conviction, even though the trial court may have focused on other convictions.

Headnotes

[1] A defendant convicted of kidnapping with intent to commit or facilitate a felony against a minor, a first-degree felony, qualifies for sexual predator designation under s…

[2] A defendant convicted of sexual battery as a second-degree felony requires a prior enumerated conviction to qualify for sexual predator designation under section 775.21(4…

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
Key Quotes

“That 'current' Kidnapping offense committed on August 3, 2000, on the 17-year-old victim, who was not related to Conley, qualified Conley for designation as a 'Sexual Predator' without the need of a prior conviction.”

Establishes that the first-degree kidnapping conviction independently satisfied the statutory criteria for sexual predator designation without requiring a prior enumerated conviction.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

On August 3, 2000, Timothy Conley kidnapped and raped a 17-year-old girl. A jury convicted him of kidnapping with intent to commit or facilitate a fel…

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.

Topics
Unlawful Sexual Activity With A Minor Tipsy Coachman Doctrine Sexual Battery

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unlawful Sexual Activity With A Minor cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Eisnaugle

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TIMOTHY CONLEY,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-389

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed July 30, 2021

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Timothy Conley, Arcadia, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NARDELLA, J.

Timothy Conley (“Conley”) challenges his designation as a sexual predator. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the trial court’s denial

The sexual predator statute codified in section 775.21 states in pertinent part as follows: (4) Sexual predator criteria.—

(a) For a current offense committed on or after October 1, 1993, upon conviction, an offender shall be designated as a “sexual predator” under subsection (5), and subject to registration under subsection (6) and community and public notification under subsection (7) if:

1. The felony is:

a. A capital, life, or first-degree felony Violation, or any attempt thereof, of s. 787.01 or s. 787.02, where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim’s parent, or of chapter 794, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0145, or a violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction; or b. Any felony violation, or any attempt thereof, of s. 787.01, s. 787.02, or s. 787.025, where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim’s parent; chapter 794, excluding ss. 794.011(10) and 794.0235; . . . and the offender has previously been convicted of or found to have committed, or has pled nolo contendere or guilty to, regardless of adjudication, any violation of . . . s. 794.011(2), (3), (4), (5), or (8) . . . .

. . . .

(5) Sexual predator designation.-- An offender is designated as a sexual predator as follows:

. . . .

§ 775.21(4),(5)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added).

Conley is correct that his convictions on Counts II, III, IV, and V for Sexual Battery, in violation of section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (2000), do not meet the criteria for “Sexual Predator” designation by themselves because those offenses are second-degree felonies. For a “current” seconddegree felony to qualify a defendant for a “Sexual Predator” designation, said defendant would also need to have a prior enumerated conviction. See § 775.21(4)(a)1.b., Fla. Stat. (2000); see also Sadler, 112 So. 3d at 499 and Hickey, 915 So. 2d at 663–64. In his Motion, Conley claimed that he did not have the requisite prior conviction when he committed the offenses in this case. The trial court did not dispute this assertion and there is nothing in the instant record to refute it.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
2 of his postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On August 3, 2000, Conley kidnapped and raped a 17-year-old girl. After hearing the evidence and testimony at trial, a jury convicted Conley of one count of Kidnapping, with the Intent to Commit or Facilitate a Felony, a first-degree felony punishable by life (Count I); four counts of Sexual Battery, each a second-degree felony (Counts II, III, IV, and V); and one count of Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor, a second-degree felony (Count VI). Eighteen years later, Conley filed the instant Rule 3.800(a) “Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence,” challenging his designation as a sexual predator. In the underlying Motion, Conley asserted that he does not meet the criteria for designation as a sexual predator under section 775.21, Florida Statutes (2002), because he lacked the requisite prior felony conviction. In support, Conley cited to Sadler v. State, 112 So. 3d 498, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (reversing denial of the defendant’s Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging sexual predator designation imposed after conviction for offense of unlawful sexual activity with a minor, a second-degree felony, because defendant did not have necessary prior conviction); and Hickey v. State, 915 So. 2d 663, 663–64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (finding defendant’s conviction for second-
3 degree felony lewd or lascivious molestation did not meet the criteria for sexual predator designation under section 775.21).
4 (a)1. An offender who meets the sexual predator criteria described in paragraph (4)(a) who is before the court for sentencing for a current offense committed on or after October 1, 1993, is a sexual predator, and the sentencing court must make a written finding at the time of sentencing that the offender is a sexual predator, and the clerk of the court shall transmit a copy of the order containing the written finding to the department within 48 hours after the entry of the order . . . .
5 However, at the same trial, the jury convicted Conley of Kidnapping with the Intent to Commit or Facilitate the Commission of a Felony, in violation of section 787.01(1)(a)2., a first-degree felony punishable by life. See § 787.01(2), Fla. Stat. (2000). That “current” Kidnapping offense committed on August 3, 2000, on the 17-year-old victim, who was not related to Conley, qualified Conley for designation as a “Sexual Predator” without the need of a prior conviction. See § 775.21(4)(a)1.a. & (5)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2000). Therefore, Conley’s “Sexual Predator” designation is lawful, and the trial court is affirmed under the tipsy coachman doctrine. See Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 96 (Fla. 2002) (“This longstanding principle of appellate law, sometimes referred to as the ‘tipsy coachman’ doctrine, allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that ‘reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons’ so long as ‘there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.’ ” (citations omitted); see also Cade v. State, 116 So. 3d 613, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (applying “tipsy coachman” doctrine to a postconviction appeal).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw