Rickman v. State

714 So. 2d 538, 1998 WL 320190
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 19, 1998
Docket97-3415
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 714 So. 2d 538 (Rickman 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
Rickman v. State, 714 So. 2d 538, 1998 WL 320190 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

714 So.2d 538 (1998)

Paul RICKMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-3415.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 19, 1998.

*539 James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberta J. Tylke, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was required to register under the Florida Sexual Predators Act, Sec. 775.21, F.S. (Supp.1996), after an earlier second conviction for unlawful sexual acts. He contends that this requirement, as well as the additional requirements of the amendments to that statute in 1997 (sec.775.21, F.S.(1997)) constitute ex post facto punishment as well as double jeopardy. This court has previously held that the registration requirement of sec. 775.21, F.S. (Supp.1996) are procedural and regulatory in nature and do not constitute punishment. Fletcher v. State, 699 So.2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 707 So.2d 1124 (Fla.1998). So, too, are the 1997 amendments which require law enforcement agencies to post the names and addresses of sexual predators on the internet, regulatory and procedural in nature. The requirement that registered sexual predators secure new driver's licenses or identification cards within 10 days of a change of address and to pay the cost thereof do not constitute an ex post facto imposition of costs, for the reason that all holders of driver's licenses are subject to the same regulatory requirements. Sec. 322.19(2), F.S. (1997).

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur.

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

Related

Tyler v. State
69 So. 3d 961 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Cabrera v. State
884 So. 2d 482 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Therrien v. State
859 So. 2d 585 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Freeland v. State
832 So. 2d 923 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Gonzalez v. State
808 So. 2d 1265 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Andrews v. State
792 So. 2d 1274 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Kelly v. State
795 So. 2d 135 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Mendez v. State
798 So. 2d 749 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Johnson v. State
795 So. 2d 82 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Simmons v. State
753 So. 2d 762 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Deatley v. State
722 So. 2d 286 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
714 So. 2d 538, 1998 WL 320190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rickman-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.