Gentes v. State
Decision Date | 16 October 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 1D01-4090.,1D01-4090. |
Parties | Donald GENTES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Robert S. Friedman, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Following the precedent set by this court in Harris v. State, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D946, ___ So.2d ___, 2002 WL 731699 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr.26, 2002), on mots. for reh'g and reh'g en banc (Oct. 4, 2002), we reverse and remand the judgment of the circuit court for further proceedings, as in Harris. We also certify as matters of great public importance the questions certified in Harris.1 We do, however, note several matters that might be significant in the event of further review of this case.
cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1125, 121 S.Ct. 880, 148 L.Ed.2d 789 (2001) ( ); Matter of Hay, 263 Kan. 822, 953 P.2d 666 (1998) ( ); People v. Moore, 69 Cal.App.4th 626, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 658 (1998) ( ); In re Kunshier, 521 N.W.2d 880 (Minn.Ct.App.1994) ( ).
In addition to the decisions of other states, our sister court has previously held that subsequent designation as a sexual violent predator under Florida law does not violate a plea agreement. See Collie v. State, 710 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
. "[D]esignating an offender to be a sexual predator after he or she has entered a plea bargain does not constitute a breach of contract because the sexual predator designation is not a form of punishment." Id. at 1008 (emphasis added). The Second District reasoned that the object of a plea bargain is punishment, while sexual predator designation serves remedial purposes, hence the object of the plea bargain remains unchanged by a subsequent sexually violent predator designation. See id.
Second, the Harris majority recognizes, but is not deterred by, authority holding civil commitment of a sexually violent predator under the Jimmy Ryce Act to be a collateral consequence of the plea agreement. See, e.g., Nelson v. State, 780 So.2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); see also Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) ( ); Murray v. Kearney, 770 So.2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ( ); cf. Westerheide v. State, 767 So.2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
review granted, 786 So.2d 1192 (Fla.2001) ( ); but see Partlow v. State, 813 So.2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ( ). Those cases holding that civil commitment is not part of the criminal sentence appear persuasive on the present issue.
Third, of the questions certified by Harris, only the two certified in the opinion on motions for rehearing and rehearing in banc need be considered. The certified question in the original Harris opinion jumps over the central issue in the case by assuming the plea agreement was breached when the State sought civil commitment. Therefore, that first question may not actually state the real issue in these cases—Whether discretionary civil commitment proceedings under the Ryce Act are somehow barred by a plea agreement for prison time followed by probation.
REVERSED and REMANDED; QUESTIONS CERTIFIED.
1. MAY THE STATE INITIATE DISCRETIONARY CIVIL COMMITMENT...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Commitment of Cartwright
...Weekly D946, ___ So.2d ___, 2002 WL 731699 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr.26, 2002), review granted, 854 So.2d 660 (Fla.2003); and Gentes v. State, 828 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), review granted sub nom. State v. Harris, 854 So.2d 660 (Fla.2003). In Harris and Gentes, which were both decided prior t......
-
State v. Harris
...court denied the motion. Gentes appealed, and the First District reversed based on its prior decision in Harris. See Gentes v. State, 828 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The First District also certified the same questions as certified in Harris, but noted that only the two questions certif......
-
Jolley v. SEAMCO LABORATORIES INC.
... ... See Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992); Weiman v. McHaffie, 470 So.2d 682, 684 (Fla.1985); see also Stanfill v. State, 384 So.2d 141, 143 (Fla.1980) ("The ... ...
-
Garcia v. State, 4D00-4694.
...in Harris v. State, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D946, ___ So.2d ___, 2002 WL 731699 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr.26, 2002); see also Gentes v. State, 828 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)(following Harris). We do not certify conflict. Rather, we point out footnote 1 in Harris which This is Appellant's second appea......