Milks v. State, No. 2D02-60.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: ALTENBERND, Chief.
• Citation: 848 So.2d 1167
• Parties: Everett Ward MILKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 2D02-60.
• Decision Date: 02 May 2003

848 So.2d 1167

Everett Ward MILKS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee

No. 2D02-60.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 2, 2003.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 2003.

848 So.2d 1168

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Anthony C. Musto, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine V. Blanco, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.

Everett Ward Milks appeals an order designating him a sexual predator pursuant to the Florida Sexual Predators Act (the Act), section 775.21, Florida Statutes (2000). He argues that the Act violates constitutional principles of separation of powers and procedural due process. We affirm.

Mr. Milks entered a no contest plea to a charge of lewd and lascivious molestation and was sentenced to six and one-half years' imprisonment. Approximately four months later, the State sought to have Mr. Milks designated a sexual predator pursuant to section 775.21. Mr. Milks objected, arguing that the Act violated constitutional principles of separation of powers and procedural due process. The trial court overruled Mr. Milks' objections and held the Act constitutional. By order dated January 2, 2002, Mr. Milks was designated a sexually violent predator. Mr. Milks has appealed this postjudgment order.¹

848 So.2d 1169

We must reject Mr. Milks' argument that the Act violates constitutional principles of separation of powers. See Kelly v. State, 795 So.2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); cf. State v. Cotton, 769 So.2d 345 (Fla.2000) (holding Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act, which took all sentencing discretion away from trial court and placed it in hands of prosecutor, did not violate separation of powers). With respect to Mr. Milks' procedural due process claim, we also affirm in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 155 L.Ed.2d 98 (2003)

Before the circuit and appellate courts, Mr. Milks has argued that the Act violates procedural due process because it publicly labels him as a dangerous sexual predator without providing him a hearing as to his actual dangerousness. Mr. Milks has relied primarily on Doe v. Department of Public Safety, 271 F.3d 38 (2d Cir.2001). In Doe, the Second Circuit held that a similar Connecticut act violated procedural due process because it deprived the defendant of a liberty...