Linderman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Linderman v. State

884 So. 2d 498, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14841, 2004 WL 2255237

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 8, 2004

DocketNos. 5D03-4103, 5D04-214

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 884 So. 2d 498 (Linderman 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

Linderman v. State, 884 So. 2d 498, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14841, 2004 WL 2255237 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PALMER, J.

Bryan Linderman (defendant) appeals the order designating him a sexual predator, arguing that his procedural due process rights were violated when he was designated as a sexual predator.¹ He relies on Espindola v. State, 855 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), in which the Third District held Florida’s Sexual Predator Act to be unconstitutional on the basis that it fails to provide minimal due process. However, this court has held that the Act is constitutional and does not violate a defendant’s procedural due process rights. See Rickman v. State, 871 So.2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The other district courts are in accord. See Allen v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D892 (Fla. 2d DCA April 14, 2004); Frazier v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D369 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.6, 2004); Dejesus v. State, 862 So.2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Accordingly, we affirm the designation order rendered below and certify conflict with Espindola.

AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.

ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PALMER, J.

Bryan Linderman (defendant) appeals the order designating him a sexual predator, arguing that his procedural due process rights were violated when he was designated as a sexual predator.¹ He relies on Espindola v. State, 855 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), in which the Third District held Florida’s Sexual Predator Act to be unconstitutional on the basis that it fails to provide minimal due process. However, this court has held that the Act is constitutional and does not violate a defendant’s procedural due process rights. See Rickman v. State, 871 So.2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The other district courts are in accord. See Allen v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D892 (Fla. 2d DCA April 14, 2004); Frazier v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D369 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.6, 2004); Dejesus v. State, 862 So.2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Accordingly, we affirm the designation order rendered below and certify conflict with Espindola.

AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.

ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

884 So. 2d 498, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14841, 2004 WL 2255237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linderman-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack