Steen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Steen v. State

954 So. 2d 110, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 6244, 2007 WL 1201707

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 25, 2007

DocketNo. 2D05-4240

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 954 So. 2d 110 (Steen 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

Steen v. State, 954 So. 2d 110, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 6244, 2007 WL 1201707 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Steen appeals an order declaring him a sexually violent predator and committing him to the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services. Mr. Steen’s argument that the jury was required to make a finding regarding his lack of volitional control has been specifically rejected by the Florida Supreme Court. See State v. White, 891 So.2d 502 (Fla.2004). Further, Dr. Swan’s testimony regarding her interpretation of the definition of the term “likely” in section 394.912(10), Florida Statutes (2004), appears to comply with the Florida Supreme Court’s recent explanation of the statutory term in Hale v. State, 891 So.2d 517 (Fla.2004). We therefore affirm the order on appeal.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, NORTHCUTT, and LaROSE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Steen appeals an order declaring him a sexually violent predator and committing him to the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services. Mr. Steen’s argument that the jury was required to make a finding regarding his lack of volitional control has been specifically rejected by the Florida Supreme Court. See State v. White, 891 So.2d 502 (Fla.2004). Further, Dr. Swan’s testimony regarding her interpretation of the definition of the term “likely” in section 394.912(10), Florida Statutes (2004), appears to comply with the Florida Supreme Court’s recent explanation of the statutory term in Hale v. State, 891 So.2d 517 (Fla.2004). We therefore affirm the order on appeal.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, NORTHCUTT, and LaROSE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

954 So. 2d 110, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 6244, 2007 WL 1201707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steen-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack