Raines v. State
This text of 805 So. 2d 999 (Raines 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.
Opinion
Shane RAINES, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
*1000 Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, Samuel A. Walker and Margaret Good-Earnest, Assistant Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Maria Pafullo and Melanie Ann Dale, Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
TAYLOR, J.
Appellant challenges his conviction and revocation of probation for failing to register as a sexual offender pursuant to section 943.0435, Florida Statutes. Although he raises several constitutional arguments, we find merit only in his contention that the statute violates equal protection in classifying him as a "sexual offender," when he was not convicted of an offense involving any sexual component.
In 1997 appellant pled no contest to a charge of false imprisonment under section 787.02, Florida Statutes. The record reveals that appellant had an argument with his fiancée when she told him she was ending their engagement. Upset by her decision, appellant locked his former fiancée's four-year-old daughter in his truck and drove away. A police chase ensued and appellant was apprehended.
In December 1999 appellant was charged by information with numerous counts for failing to comply with the registration requirements of Florida's sexual offender statute. He sought dismissal of the information and the affidavit of violation of probation based on those charges. Appellant argued that section 943.0435 unconstitutionally infringed upon his due process and equal protection rights because the false imprisonment charge did not involve any sexual behavior. After his motion was denied, appellant pled no contest to the failure to register charge and admitted *1001 violating his probation. He reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.
In 1994 Congress enacted the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Program. 42 U.S.C.A. § 14071. This legislation required states, as a condition of receiving specified federal funding, to legislate the registration of sexual offenders. 42 U.S.C.A. § 14071(g); Senate Staff Analysis and Economic Impact Statement, Criminal Justice Committee and Senator Buret, CS/SB 1992 (April 8, 1998), p. 1 (discussing how the Jacob Wetterling Act and federal Megan's Law condition state receipt of its portion of federal Byrne grant formula funding upon compliance with federal standards); Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367, 376 (1995).
In 1997 Florida enacted a sexual offender registration statute. Ch. 97-299, § 8, Laws of Fla., eff. Oct. 1, 1997. The original version described "sex offender" as a person who had been:
convicted of committing, or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit, any of the criminal offenses proscribed in the following statutes in this state or analogous offenses in another jurisdiction: s. 787.025 [luring or enticing a child], Chapter 794 [sexual battery], s. 796.03 [procuring person under age of 18 for prostitution], s. 800.04 [lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age], s. 827.071 [sexual performance by a child], s. 847.0133 [protection of minors; prohibition of certain acts in connection with obscenity], s. 847.0135 [computer pornography], s. 847.0145 [selling or buying of minors], or any similar offense committed in this state which has been redesignated from a former statute number to one of those listed in this subparagraph.
In 1998 the legislature amended section 943.0435(1)(a), modifying the definition of "sexual offender" to include kidnaping and false imprisonment, sections 787.01 and 787.02 respectively, where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim's parent.[1] Ch. 98-81, § 7, Laws of Fla.
The legislature has broad discretion in determining necessary measures for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. State v. Yu, 400 So.2d 762 (Fla.1981). In exercising its powers, the legislature made specific findings relating to section 943.0435. It stated:
The Legislature finds that sexual offenders, especially those who have committed their offenses against minors, often pose a high risk of engaging in sexual offenses, even after being released from incarceration or commitment, and that protection of the public from sexual offenders is a paramount government interest. Sexual offenders have a reduced expectation of privacy because of the public's interest in public safety and in the effective operation of government. Releasing information concerning sexual offenders to law enforcement agencies *1002 and to persons who request such information, and the release of such information to the public by a law enforcement agency or public agency, will further the governmental interests of public safety. The designation of a person as a sexual offender is not a sentence or a punishment, but is simply the status of the offender which is the result of a conviction for having committed certain crimes.
Ch.2000-246, § 3, Laws of Fla.
Because appellant was convicted of false imprisonment[2], one of the enumerated offenses in the definition of "sexual offender," he was required to register. He argues that the sexual offender statute deprives him of equal protection, because the sexual offender classification, which includes those who have not committed a sexually-related offense, is not rationally related to a governmental objective.
"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall `deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws,' which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). We begin our equal protection analysis by observing that the sexual offender statute improperly differentiates between a non-parent convicted of committing a non-sexual offense against a child, such as a simple battery, and a non-parent convicted of committing a non-sexual kidnaping or false imprisonment of a child. The latter is labeled a sexual offender; the former is not.
"The general rule [for equal protection] is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest." Id. at 440, 105 S.Ct. 3249. Thus, our inquiry focuses upon whether the legislative classification, based upon a non-sexually motivated false imprisonment conviction, is rationally related to the object of *1003 the legislation. See Poritz, 662 A.2d at 413 (sex offenders are not a suspect or quasi suspect class; statute rationally related to compelling state interest in preventing repeat sex crimes); State v. Ward, 123 Wash.2d 488, 869 P.2d 1062 (1994)(sex offenders are not a suspect class for purposes of equal protection review; classification is not arbitrary but rationally related to state's legitimate interest in assisting local law enforcement).
Without question, the state has an interest in protecting the public from sexual offenders. Ch.2000-246, § 3 Laws of Fla.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
805 So. 2d 999, 2001 WL 1575734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raines-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.