Sigler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sigler v. State

877 So. 2d 858, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10091, 2004 WL 1530931

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 2004

DocketNo. 5D04-1573

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 877 So. 2d 858 (Sigler 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

Sigler v. State, 877 So. 2d 858, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10091, 2004 WL 1530931 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Sigler (defendant) appeals the summary denial of what the trial court properly deemed to be a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.¹ He challenges his “sexual predator” status. We affirm.

The defendant first contends that his sexual predator designation must be stricken pursuant to State v. Robinson, 873 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004). In Robinson, the Supreme Court issued a narrow holding that the designation as a sexual predator violates the defendant’s right to due process of law in situations where the defendant is not convicted of an offense involving a sexual act. The Robinson case is inapplicable here because this case involves a conviction for forcing or enticing a child to commit a lewd, lascivious, or indecent act; clearly, an offense that involves a sexual act.

Next, the defendant asserts that the Florida Sexual Predator Act is facially unconstitutional as being violative of procedural due process, citing to Espindola v. State, 855 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). However, this court, as well as all of the other district courts, have disagreed with Espindola and certified conflict therewith. See Frazier v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D369, 2004 WL 221043, — So.2d - (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.6, 2004); Martin v. State, 864 So.2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Reyes v. State, 854 So.2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Milks v. State, 848 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 859 So.2d 514 (Fla.2003).

We therefore affirm and once again certify conflict with Espindola.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Sigler (defendant) appeals the summary denial of what the trial court properly deemed to be a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.¹ He challenges his “sexual predator” status. We affirm.

The defendant first contends that his sexual predator designation must be stricken pursuant to State v. Robinson, 873 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004). In Robinson, the Supreme Court issued a narrow holding that the designation as a sexual predator violates the defendant’s right to due process of law in situations where the defendant is not convicted of an offense involving a sexual act. The Robinson case is inapplicable here because this case involves a conviction for forcing or enticing a child to commit a lewd, lascivious, or indecent act; clearly, an offense that involves a sexual act.

Next, the defendant asserts that the Florida Sexual Predator Act is facially unconstitutional as being violative of procedural due process, citing to Espindola v. State, 855 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). However, this court, as well as all of the other district courts, have disagreed with Espindola and certified conflict therewith. See Frazier v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D369, 2004 WL 221043, — So.2d - (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.6, 2004); Martin v. State, 864 So.2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Reyes v. State, 854 So.2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Milks v. State, 848 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 859 So.2d 514 (Fla.2003).

We therefore affirm and once again certify conflict with Espindola.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

877 So. 2d 858, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 10091, 2004 WL 1530931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sigler-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack