Hixon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hixon v. State

917 So. 2d 225, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20578, 2005 WL 3299880

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 2005

DocketNo. 2D05-207

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 917 So. 2d 225 (Hixon 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

Hixon v. State, 917 So. 2d 225, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20578, 2005 WL 3299880 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

VILLANTI, Judge.

Darin S. Hixon challenges the postcon-viction court’s order granting his motion for clarification filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. We affirm the postconviction court’s ruling on ground one without comment. In ground two of his motion, Hixon claims he does not have the requisite prior convictions to be ■ designated a sexual predator. The postconviction court failed to address this claim in its order. This court has recently held that a sexual predator designation is a matter that can be challenged by an appropriate postconviction motion. See King v. State, 911 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc). We therefore reverse and remand for the postconviction court to consider Hixon’s claim on the merits.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

VILLANTI, Judge.

Darin S. Hixon challenges the postcon-viction court’s order granting his motion for clarification filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. We affirm the postconviction court’s ruling on ground one without comment. In ground two of his motion, Hixon claims he does not have the requisite prior convictions to be ■ designated a sexual predator. The postconviction court failed to address this claim in its order. This court has recently held that a sexual predator designation is a matter that can be challenged by an appropriate postconviction motion. See King v. State, 911 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc). We therefore reverse and remand for the postconviction court to consider Hixon’s claim on the merits.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

917 So. 2d 225, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20578, 2005 WL 3299880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hixon-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack