Anderson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anderson v. State

932 So. 2d 321, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1270, 2006 WL 250270

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 3, 2006

DocketNo. 2D05-1459

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 932 So. 2d 321 (Anderson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. State, 932 So. 2d 321, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1270, 2006 WL 250270 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Morris K. Anderson appeals the denial of his motion for relief from judgment, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, which challenges his designation as a sexual predator. Although this court recently receded from its prior case law on this issue in King v. State, 911 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that challenges to a sexual predator designation should now be raised through a motion for postconviction relief), the trial court fully addressed Anderson’s claims on the merits, whether considered as a rule 1.540 motion or as a motion for postconviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Anderson’s claim.

Affirmed.

CANADY, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Morris K. Anderson appeals the denial of his motion for relief from judgment, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, which challenges his designation as a sexual predator. Although this court recently receded from its prior case law on this issue in King v. State, 911 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that challenges to a sexual predator designation should now be raised through a motion for postconviction relief), the trial court fully addressed Anderson’s claims on the merits, whether considered as a rule 1.540 motion or as a motion for postconviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Anderson’s claim.

Affirmed.

CANADY, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

932 So. 2d 321, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1270, 2006 WL 250270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack