Littlefield v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Littlefield v. State

914 So. 2d 981, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5417, 2004 WL 832890

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 2004

DocketNo. 1D03-1843

StatusPublished

This text of 914 So. 2d 981 (Littlefield 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

Littlefield v. State, 914 So. 2d 981, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5417, 2004 WL 832890 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues the trial court erred in declaring appellant to be a sex offender and rejecting his argument that section 943.0435, Florida Statutes (1998), which requires the registration of “sex offenders,” is unconstitutional on the ground that it denies procedural due process. Appellant’s argument is without merit. We have recently rejected the same constitutional challenge both under section 943.0435, see Ames v. State, 870 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and under section 775.21, The Florida Sexual Predator Act. See Frazier v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D369, — So.2d -, 2004 WL 221043 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.6, 2004), and cases cited therein. For purposes of appellant’s argument that a hearing is required before the stigma of sexual offender status is imposed, the two statutes are indistinguishable because they both require an automatic determination if one of the enumerated crimes has been committed, registration for life, and criminal prosecution in the event a defendant fails to register.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues the trial court erred in declaring appellant to be a sex offender and rejecting his argument that section 943.0435, Florida Statutes (1998), which requires the registration of “sex offenders,” is unconstitutional on the ground that it denies procedural due process. Appellant’s argument is without merit. We have recently rejected the same constitutional challenge both under section 943.0435, see Ames v. State, 870 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and under section 775.21, The Florida Sexual Predator Act. See Frazier v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D369, — So.2d -, 2004 WL 221043 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.6, 2004), and cases cited therein. For purposes of appellant’s argument that a hearing is required before the stigma of sexual offender status is imposed, the two statutes are indistinguishable because they both require an automatic determination if one of the enumerated crimes has been committed, registration for life, and criminal prosecution in the event a defendant fails to register.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

914 So. 2d 981, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5417, 2004 WL 832890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/littlefield-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack