Gentes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gentes v. State

878 So. 2d 469, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11309, 2004 WL 1685441

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 29, 2004

DocketNo. 1D02-5180

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 878 So. 2d 469 (Gentes 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

Gentes v. State, 878 So. 2d 469, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11309, 2004 WL 1685441 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. We find the issues raised by appellant regarding the jury instructions, admission of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence are without merit. We also find the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for new trial and reinstating an order of civil commitment as a sexually violent predator based on appellant’s plea agreement. See State v. Harris, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S230, — So.2d -, 2004 WL 1064790 (Fla. May 13, 2004); Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217 (Fla.2002). However, we certify as a question of great public importance the same question certified by our sister courts in Freeze v. State, 861 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Gray v. State, 854 So.2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003):

MAY AN INDIVIDUAL BE COMMITTED UNDER THE JIMMY RYCE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT THE STATE MUST PROVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HAS SERIOUS DIFFICULTY IN CONTROLLING HIS OR HER DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR?

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. We find the issues raised by appellant regarding the jury instructions, admission of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence are without merit. We also find the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for new trial and reinstating an order of civil commitment as a sexually violent predator based on appellant’s plea agreement. See State v. Harris, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S230, — So.2d -, 2004 WL 1064790 (Fla. May 13, 2004); Murray v. Regier, 872 So.2d 217 (Fla.2002). However, we certify as a question of great public importance the same question certified by our sister courts in Freeze v. State, 861 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Gray v. State, 854 So.2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003):

MAY AN INDIVIDUAL BE COMMITTED UNDER THE JIMMY RYCE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT THE STATE MUST PROVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HAS SERIOUS DIFFICULTY IN CONTROLLING HIS OR HER DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR?

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

878 So. 2d 469, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11309, 2004 WL 1685441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gentes-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack