Powers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Powers v. State

876 So. 2d 1251, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9691, 2004 WL 1486043

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 2, 2004

DocketNo. 5D04-1389

StatusPublished

This text of 876 So. 2d 1251 (Powers 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

Powers v. State, 876 So. 2d 1251, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9691, 2004 WL 1486043 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PALMER, J.

Napoleon Powers (defendant) appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 mo[1252]*1252tion, 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, - So.2d -, 2004 WL 784677 (Fla. 2d DCA April 14, 2004); Frazier v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D369, — So.2d -, 2004 WL 221043 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.6, 2004); Dejesus v. State, 862 So.2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the defendant’s rule 3.850 motion and certify conflict with Espindola.

AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.

SAWAYA, C.J. and TORPY, J., concur.

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

PALMER, J.

Napoleon Powers (defendant) appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 mo[1252]*1252tion, 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, - So.2d -, 2004 WL 784677 (Fla. 2d DCA April 14, 2004); Frazier v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D369, — So.2d -, 2004 WL 221043 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.6, 2004); Dejesus v. State, 862 So.2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the defendant’s rule 3.850 motion and certify conflict with Espindola.

AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.

SAWAYA, C.J. and TORPY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

876 So. 2d 1251, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9691, 2004 WL 1486043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powers-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack