Renoit Saintelien v. State of Florida SC06-1888 · sc06-1888 >> please rise. hear ye hear ye hear...

In re: Amendments to the Florida Small Claims Rules

file:///Volumes/www/gavel2gavel/transcript/06-1888.html[12/21/12 3:15:36 PM]

The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. Thisservice is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legaldocuments, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court. <

Renoit Saintelien v. State of Florida

SC06-1888

>> PLEASE RISE.HEAR YE HEAR YE HEAR YE.SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOWIN SESSION, ALL WHO HAVE CAUSETO PLEA, DRAW NEAR, GIVEATTENTION AND YOU SHALL BEHEARD.GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES,THIS GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA ANDTHIS HONORABLE COURT.>> GOOD MORNING.>> GOOD MORNING.>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THEFLORIDA SUPREME COURT.PLEASE BE SEATED.>> GOOD MORNING, FRIENDS ANDWELCOME TO THE ORAL ARGUMENTCALENDAR FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY5th, 2007, BEFORE WE BEGIN OURARGUMENTS WE WOULD TAKE THE APPTRUANT TO WELCOME THE FSU LAWSCHOOL SUMMER UNDERGRADUATEPROGRAM, WE ARE GLAD YOU AREHERE AND WILL BE OBSERVING FINEATTORNEYS AND FINE ARGUMENTSTHIS MORNING.CASES OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE TOTHE STATE OF FLORIDA.SO, WE MOVE DIRECTLY TO OURFIRST CASE.CALL IT.>> GOOD MORNING, MAY IT PLEASETHIS COURT, BEVERLY POHL OFBROAD & CASSEL, FOR RENOITSAINTELIEN.THIS CASE PRESENTS YET ANOTHERIN THE LONG LIST OF CASESDEALING WITH THE FLORIDA SEXUALPREDATORS ACT AND, INPARTICULAR, WHETHER A CHALLENGETO THE LEGALITY OF A SEXUALPREDATOR DESIGNATION CAN BERAISED VIA A 3.800APOSTCONVICTION MOTION.>> MAY I ASK YOU, I KNOW THERE



IS A BROADER PROCEDURAL ISSUEBUT AS FAR AS YOUR CLIENT --AND I ASSUME YOU AREZZ!!$$ COURT-APPOINTED, ON THIS, HISCLAIM IS HE DIDN'T GET WHAT HEBARGAINED FOR.>> THAT'S CORRECT.>> AND WOULDN'T THAT, IN ANYEVENT, NOT BE A 3.800, EVENASSUMING WE WOULD SAY IT COULDBE CONSIDERED A LEGAL --ILLEGAL SENTENCE AND SITUATIONWHERE CLEARLY THE PERSONWOULDN'T QUALIFY IN A SITUATIONWHERE THEY ARE SAYING THATTHEIR PLEA WAS -- DID NOTINCLUDE IT, WOULDN'T IT -- HOWWOULD THAT BE A 3.800 ANY WAY?ASSUMING IT WAS, YOU KNOW, ANORMAL PLEA CASE.>> WELL, THE NAME OF HIS PRO SEMOTION WAS IT WAS AN ILLEGALSENTENCE PRECISELY BECAUSE ITWAS NOT PART OF THE BARGAINEDFOR, NEGOTIATED PLEA BUT IWOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, YOURHONOR, THE MERITS OF THE CASEARE NOT BEFORE THE COURT.THE MERITS -->> NO, NO, NO, BUT NORMALLY IFWE ARE GOING TO CONSIDERWHETHER SOMETHING IS PART OF ANEGOTIATED PLEA AND WHETHERSOMEBODY WAS SEEKING TOWITHDRAW THE PLEA, WE WOULDLOOK AT THAT ASSUMING IT WAS ANORMAL CRIMINAL CASE, THROUGH3850, BECAUSE IT MIGHT INVOLVETHE TAKING OF TESTIMONY AS TOWHAT WAS AGREED TO OR SOMETHINGOF THAT NATURE.AND I DIDN'T SEE THAT AS BEINGPART OF WHAT ANYONE SAYS.>> WELL, I DON'T THINK IT ISAPPROPRIATE TO GET DRAWN TOODEEPLY INTO THE MERITS OF THECASE BUT I THINK IT WOULD BEPOSSIBLE TO EXAMINE THELEGALITY OF THE SEXUAL PREDATORDESIGNATION BASED UPON THEFACTS OF RECORD, WHICH DOINCLUDE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THEPLEA, COLLOQUY, THE PLEADOCUMENTS THEMSELVES AND THOSE



ALL GO TO THE MERITS WHICH WERENEVER -->> THE PROBLEM WITH THATPROCEDURALLY IS THAT IF YOUHAVE TO GO INTO THE RECORD, ANDINTO THE FACTS, OF THE CASE,THEN THE ONLY PROCEDURE WE HAVEASSUMING WE DID THIS UNDER THECRIMINAL RULE WOULD BE 3.850AND THAT HAS A TWO-YEARLIMITATION.WHICH -- THIS FAR EXCEEDED TWOYEARS, CORRECT.>> JUSTICE WELL, I RESPECTFULLYDISAGREE IT IS 3.800 ISPERFECTLY SUITED TO A CASEWHERE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THERECORD, THE LIMITATIONS, THEKINDS OF CASES THAT CAN ONLY BEHEARD UNDER 3.850 ARE THOSETHAT REQUIRE FACTUALDEVELOPMENT, A FACTUALPRESENTATION AT IT HEARING BUTWHERE EVERYTHING IS DEVELOPEDALREADY AND ON THE FACE OF THERECORD, 3.800 WOULD BE ANAPPROPRIATE KIND -->> BUT I CAN'T THINK OF A CASETHAT INVOLVES A NEGOTIATED PLEAWHERE SOMEBODY WOULD BE SAYINGIT IS NOT PART OF THE BARGAINAS OPPOSED -- AS OPPOSED TOUNDER NO SET OF CIRCUMSTANCESCOULD IT BE IMPOSED, WHERE THATCOULD BE RAISED AT ANY TIMEUNDER 3.800A.>> WHERE THE BARGAIN IS INWRITING AND IS OF RECORD, IDON'T SEE WHY IT WOULDN'TCONCEPTUALLY BE POSSIBLE, YOURHONOR BUT AGAIN IT GOES TO THEMERITS, THAT WERE NOT BRIEFEDAND REACHED BY THE 4thDISTRICT.THE QUESTION FOR THIS COURT ISREALLY A PROCEDURAL QUESTION,ASSUMING THAT THERE ISCOLORABLE ALLEGATION OFILLEGALITY OF THE SEXUALPREDATOR DESIGNATION CAN THATBE RAISED IN A 3.-->> AND YOUR POINT IS, IT IS ANIM PRACTICE KAELT TO TRY TO DOIT THROUGH A CIVIL PROCEEDING,



AS AN -- IT IS MORE OF APRACTICAL SOLUTION AS OPPOSEDTO WHETHER THIS IS A SENTENCE,BECAUSE WE CLEARLY SAID THISTYPE OF DESIGNATION IS NOT PARTOF THE SENTENCE.>> AND I'M PERFECTLY WILLING TOFACE WHAT THE STATUS OF THE LAWIS NOW AND THIS IS, IT HAS BEENESTABLISHED THAT A SEXUALPREDATOR DESIGNATION IS NOT ASENTENCE AND NOT A PUNISHMENT.>> BUT WE HAVE SAID IT IS ACOLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE OF THEPLEA OR THE CONVICTION, CORRECT?>> YES, YOUR HONOR, YOU HAVESAID THAT.>> SO HOW DO WE DEAL WITH OTHERSITUATIONS THAT WE HAVE SAIDARE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OFA PLEA OR CONVICTION?HOW ARE THOSE KINDS OF ISSUESRAISED?AREN'T THEY NORMALLY RAISED INA 3.850 MOTION.>> BUT THIS IS A UNIQUE SPECIESOF COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE ANDTHIS COURT IN ROBINSON SAIDTHAT A SEXUAL PREDATORDESIGNATION AND ONE REALLYCANNOT ARGUE, IS A SUBSTANTIALINFRINGEMENT UPON A PERSON'SLIBERTY INTERESTS AND MAKE ITVERY DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHERCOLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE.EVERY -->> HOW DIFFERENT FROM THECOLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE OF BEINGDEPORTED?I MEAN, THAT SEEMS TO ME THATIS A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL BELIBERTY INTEREST INVOLVEDTHERE.YOU DON'T RAISE WHETHER OR NOTYOU WERE PROPERLY TOLD THAT YOUCOULD BE DEPORTED IN A 3.800MOTION, DO YOU?>> BUT EVERY PLEA THAT ISENTERED INTO NOW, THE TRIALJUDGE HAS TO ADVISOR SEVER ---- EVERY, SINGLE DEFENDANT OFTHE POTENTIAL FOR DEPORTATIONAND IN THIS CASE THERE IS NOREQUIREMENT THAT A DEFENDANT



WHO IS ENTERING INTO A PLEA BETOLD ME MIGHT HAVE LIFELONG ANDONEROUS BURDENS IMPOSED ON HIMDUE TO THE SEXUAL PREDATOR ACT.>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THELANGUAGE OF 3.800A.YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE RELYING ONKING.FROM THE 2nd AND IT SEEMS LIKEIN THAT CASE THE DCA REALLY DIDNOT ANALYZE THE LANGUAGE OF3.800A TO DETERMINE WHETHERTHIS WOULD FIT UNDER THAT RULE.AND SAID IT IS NOT WORKING OUTIN THE CIVIL CONTEXT AND YOUCAN DO IT UNDER THE CRIMINALCONTEXT, UNDER 3.800A AND SEEMSLIKE WHEN YOU ANALYZE THELANGUAGE OF 3.800 A IT IS NOTANYTHING THAT COMES UNDER THETYPES OF LIMITED ORDERS THATARE DESIGNED TO BE FILED AT ANYTIME AND, YOU KNOW, 300A IS AVERY LIBERAL RULE IN THE SENSETHERE IS NO TIME LIMITATIONWHATSOEVER AND CON COMET TAENLIS A NARROW RULE DESIGNED TOADDRESS SPECIFIC TYPES OFORDERS.AND DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT ITIS AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE UNDER ANINCORRECT CALCULATION ON ASCORE SHEET, NOT GRANTED PROPERCREDIT FOR TIME SERVED OR OTHERVERY LIMITED THINGS AND UNDERWHAT SECTION WOULD IT FALLUNDER?IN ORDER TO USE 3.800A THECOURT WOULD HAVE TO ADOPT APOSITION THAT THIS IS AT THELEAST IN THE NATURE OF ASENTENCE OR PART OF THESENTENCING PROCESS.ITS SOMETHING IMPOSED BY THECRIMINAL COURT EXCLUSIVELY ANDTHE DEFENSE -->> EVEN IF WE SAE IT IS PART OFTHE SENTENCING PROCESS AND IMAY AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT, ITMAY PUT IT UNDER 3.850 ANDUNDER 3.800B IN THE SENSE YOUCAN APPEAL AFTER THE ORDERDURING THE APPEAL OF A CRIMINALSENTENCING AND THOSE KINDS OF



THINGS BUT I THINK IT'S AN EVENSTRETCH -- ALMOST AN ABYSS TOSAY IT IS AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE.>> AND I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'SCONCERN WITH THAT AND PERHAPSTHE RIGHT ANSWER, IF 3.800A ISNOT REALLY BROAD ENOUGH TOENCOMPASS THIS SORT OFSITUATION, PERHAPS THE SANS ISWE NEED ANOTHER RULE THAT -->> CAN YOU ANSWER TO ADD ITUNDER 3.850?WHY IS THIS THE TYPE OF THINGTHAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT ANYTIME WHEN EVEN UNDER KING YOUHAVE FOUR OTHER METHODS OFADDRESSING THIS.YOU CAN IMPOSE IT UNDER -- --DURING THE APPEAL, RIGHT?YOU CAN IMPOSE IT UNDER 3.800B,YOU CAN DO IT UNDER 3.850.IN THE KIFL CONTEXT, IF IMPOSEDIN A KIFL CONTEXT YOU WOULD DOIT UNDER CIVIL -- CIVIL RULES,1.-- 1.540.>> THANK YOU, 1.540 OR UNDER9.140.IF IT WAS DONE AFTER THESENTENCING, DO IT UNDER 9.140.BUT I THINK THE PROBLEM YOUHAVE IS THAT IN ORDER FOR TOYOU WIN THIS CASE, WE'D HAVE TOGO TO THE COMPLETE OTHEREXTREME AND SAY, NOT ONLY COULDYOU DO IT UNDER ALL OF THOSETYPES OF PROCEEDINGS, BUT YOUCAN ALSO DO IT AT ANY TIME.WHY SHOULD WE GO TO THATEXTREME.>> YOU SHOULD GO TO SOME -- IFNOT DO THAT -- TO THAT EXTREMEYOU SHOULD FIND SOME WAY TOMAKE IT SOMETHING THAT CAN BECHALLENGED AT ANY TIME OF THEUNIQUE PROVISIONS OF THISSTATUTE AND HOW THEY AREINCREDIBLY BURDENSOME ON APERSON FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIFE.>> WE HAVE THE OTHER COLLATERALCONSEQUENCES SUCH AS THEJUSTICE MENTIONED, DEPORTATION,BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE MOUNTINGPUNISHMENTS THAT COME LATER ONDUE TO THE NUMBER OF



CONVICTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ANDTHAT KIND OF SCENARIO AND MAYPLEAD GUILTY ON ONE -- ON ONEOCCASION, AND THEN IT COMESBACK TO HAWN YOU MANY YEARSLATER SO THE SAME ARGUMENT ANDWE HAVE ALREADY CROSSED THATBRIDGE, THOSE ARE COLLATERALCONSEQUENCES OF THESE THINGS,HAVE WE NOT.>> I'M NOT QUITE SURE IUNDERSTAND PRECISELY THEQUESTION.>> THE QUESTION IS, IN THECRIMINAL CAN TEXT, IF YOU PLEADGUILTY TO A CERTAIN CRIME THATIS USED TO HABITUALIZE YOU ANDDO OTHER THINGS TO YOU LATER ONAND IS NOT PART OF THE PLEACOLLOQUY BUT ARE COLLATERALCONSEQUENCES AND THOSE ARE ALLHANDLED, ARE THEY NOT, THROUGHA 3.850-TYPE MECHANISM.>> THOSE CONVICTIONS, THOSESENTENCES COULD BE BUT UNLESSTHEY WERE ILLEGALLY IMPOSED.I'M NOT SAYING THAT NO ARGUMENTCOULD BE FASHIONED -->> YOU SAY THE SAME THING ITHINK DID NOT AGREE THAT THISCOULD BE USED AGAINST ME, THATWAS NOT PART OF MY PLEA ITCOULD BE USED IN THE FUTURE ANDWE'VE CROSSED THE BRIM BUT ISNOT A BASIS TO SET ASIDE THEPLEA -->> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TONOTE THAT NO COURT, NONE OF THEDISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL, ANDTHERE HAVE BEEN MANY, MANYCASES INVOLVING THE STATUTE,HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THERE ISANY KIND OF WAIVER, IF ADEFENDANT DOESN'T SEEK TO SETASIDE AN ILLEGALLY IMPOSEDSEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATION.>> SEE, THE OTHER CASES -- ANDTHAT IS WHY I STILL HAVEPROBLEMS WITH THE FACTS OF THISCASE -- THE OTHER CASES WEREWHERE THE STATE CONCEDED THATTHE QUALIFYING -- CRIME WAS NOTA QUALIFYING CRIME FOR SEXUALPREDATOR STATUS AND IN THOSE



SITUATIONS I CAN UNDERSTANDTHAT IT COULD EVEN POTENTIALLYFIT UNDER THE 3.800 MODEBECAUSE NO COURT COULD EVERHAVE IMPOSED IT.THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE DEALINGWITH HERE AND I THINK WHAT WENEED TO COME UP WITH IS AWORKABLE SOLUTION SO WE DON'T,YOU KNOW, HAVE ALL OF THECOURTS KIND OF FASHIONING THEIROWN REMEDY, BUT I'M NOT SURETHAT THE APS WOULD BE, WELL,EVERYTHING WOULD JUST GO -- BETHROWN INTO 3.800 AND I THINKTHAT IS WHAT JUSTICE CON TAROTIS POINTING OUT, THAT THEREWOULD BE OTHER WAYS TO DEALWITH IT, IF TRULY IT WOULD BE ABASIS FOR SET ASIDE THE PLEA ORSAYING THIS WASN'T PART OF WHATWAS BARGAINED FOR, BUT AGAIN IWOULD THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BEWITHIN A TIME-LIMITED SITUATION.AS OPPOSED TO THE ONE WHERE ITNEVER COULD BE QUALIFYING ANDYOU AGREE THAT THIS CRIME WASONE THAT WOULD MEET THEQUALIFYING DEFINITION FORSEXUAL PREDATOR STATUS.>> YES.I DO AGREE WITH THAT AND ITSIMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT HE DIDNOT SEEK TO SET ASIDE HIS PLEA.ONLY TO SET ASIDE THE SEXUALPREDATOR DESIGNATION ENTEREDFOUR MONTHS AFTER -->> THEY TRY AN PARSE IT ANDTHAT IS THE PROBLEM, ONE IS ANATURAL CONSEQUENCE AND I THINKTHAT IS WHAT JUSTICE LEWIS WASALLUDING TO ABOUT THE CASESWHERE IT COMES BECAUSE OF THENATURE OF THE -- NATURE OF THECRIME BUT IS NOT NECESSARILY ABASIS FOR SETTING ASIDE THEPLEA.>> THE 4th DISTRICT HAS NOTSQUARELY ADDRESSED THATQUESTION IN THE PARTICULARCONTEXT.THERE IS A CASE FROM THE 2ndDISTRICT THAT HOLDS THAT ITDOESN'T VIOLATE A PLEA



AGREEMENT TO IMPOSE LATERSEXUAL PREDATOR DEZ NATION BUTAT LEAST IN THE 4th DISTRICTIT'S NOT A DECIDED QUESTION ANDI WOULD HATE FOR THE PROCEDURALQUESTION BEFORE THIS COURT TOGET CUT SHORT TALKING ABOUT THEMERITS THAT HAVEN'T EVEN BEENBRIEFED.>> LET ME ASK YOU ON THEPROCEDURAL ASPECT, ON NICHOLSON,IT SAYS FROM NOW ON THE -- ITMUST BE OBSERVED BY CON TEMPRAN NUS OBJECTION OR A RULE800B MOTION, WHY ISN'T THATAPPROPRIATE.>> NICHOLSON WAS A DIRECTAPPEAL CASE AND SUBSEQUENT TOTHAT IN A CASE, CABRERA, THATCOURT SUGGESTED AT THE END OFTHE DECISION THAT IT COULD BERAISED IN A 3.800A AND SO THE5th DISTRICT DOES NOT LIMIT --HAS NOT LIMITED ITSELF TO THE3.800B REMEDY.IT HAS GONE BEYOND THE STATUSOF THE LAW IN NICHOLSON.>> HOW ABOUT TAKING THE EXAMPLETHAT JUSTICE PARIENTE HAS POSEDTO YOU AND SEE HOW YOU WOULDAPPLY IT.TO THE ISSUES YOU HAVE HEAR.THAT IS, WHAT SHE SAID IS THATFOR EXAMPLE, IF THE QUALIFYINGCRIME HAS BEEN DETERMINED NOTTO BE A QUALIFYING CRIME UNDERTHE LAW SO THAT THESECONSEQUENCES CANNOT ATTACK --ATTACH TO THAT, THAT WE INESSENCE HAVE SAID THAT THATCLEARLY WOULD BE AN ILLEGALSENTENCE.ALL RIGHT?NOW, TAKING THAT, THAT IS, THATIF YOU GET CONVICTED OFRECKLESS DRIVING, IF YOU DON'TEND UP BEING DESIGNATED AS ASEXUAL PREDATOR, AND SINCE THATCONVICTION IS THERE, FOR ALLTIME, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ONTHE RECORD, AND IF THE LEGALRULING -- THE LAW IS, YOU KNOW,THAT IS NOT A QUALIFYINGOFFENSE, THEN IT WOULD SEEM



THAT WOULD BE THE CLASSIC CASEFOR THE 3.800A.NOW HOW IS IT THAT YOURSITUATION HAS ALL THE EARMARKSOF THAT SAME ILLEGALDEFINITION?EXPLAIN TO US WHY WE SHOULD FITYOUR SITUATION INTO THAT KINDOF, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THAT WEHAVE DEFINED ILLEGALITY.>> YOU ARE ASKING ME AGAIN TOARGUE THE MERITS OF THIS CASE,AND I -->> HAS A LOT OF THE CASE, THEN,JUST BEEN SPENT ON THE ARGUMENTBETWEEN YOUR CLIENT AND THESTATE AND THE STATE SAYING, GOFILE A CIVIL ACTION OR, YOUKNOW, THAT AS OPPOSED TORESOLVING THIS AND THROUGH ARULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ISTHAT A PART OF WHAT HASHAPPENED HERE.>> WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS THATTHE 4th DISTRICT COURT OFAPPEALS SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T USE3.800A TO RAISE THE TYPE OFCLAIM THAT YOU HAVE RAISED.THE SEXUAL -- CHALLENGE TO THESEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATION ANDTHEY SAID, PROCEDURAL WILL YOUIF USED THE WRONG PROCEDURE ANDMUST FILE A CIVIL SUIT.>> THAT IS THIS PROBLEM, SIMPLYSTOPPED AND SAID THIS ISN'T A3.800 TYPE OF CLAIM, PROBABLYWOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE BECAUSE,FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK IT IS.EVEN FIT WERE A CRIMINAL CASE,AND I THINK THAT IS WHY WE ARESTRUGGLING BECAUSE IF WE WERETO SAY PRO NOUPS THESE CAN BERAISED 3.800 I STILL SAY YOURSCOULDN'T BE RAISED THAT WAY ANDWE'D HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT.OTHERWISE WE'D CREATE HAVOC FORALL OTHER TYPES OF PLEAAGREEMENTS IN AN EFFORT TOFASHION SOMETHING FOR -- THATIS FAIR WE DON'T WANT TO HAVEOUR OWN COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES,DON'T YOU, AS A -- DON'T YOUSEE THAT THAT IS A PROBLEM FORTHIS COURT IN THE SITUATION.



>> I DO BUT I SEE THAT THECIVIL REMEDY THE 4th DISTRICTSUGGESTED AND THE FIRSTDISTRICT RECENTLY JOINED ISCOMPLETELY THE WRONG APPROACH.>> AND THAT MAY BE RIGHT BUTBEYOND THAT, I'M NOT SURE TOSAY BUT IT GOES IN TO 3.800 IS-->> AND MAY EVEN GO INTO SOMERULE THAT DOES NOT YET EXISTBECAUSE WHERE YOU HAVE ACOLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE WHERE ITIS LIFELONG, IMPOSED BURDENSAND RESTRICTION AND PUBLICSTIGMA TO THE EXTENT THIS ISAND EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THEREHAS BEEN PLENTY OF LITIGATIONABOUT THE DEGREE OF A BURDENTHE STATUTE PUTS ON SOMEBODY,THERE MUST BE A WAY IF THERE ISA VALID ALLEGATION IT SHOULDN'THAVE BEEN IMPOSED, MUST BE AWAY TO GET -->> A LOT OF DECISIONS TRIALCOURTS AND JURIES MAKE THATHAVE LIFELONG CONSEQUENCES, BUTWE DON'T ALLOW DEFENDANTS TOAPPEAL THOSE OR OBJECT TO THOSETEN YEARS AFTER THE FACT.WE GIVE A TWO-YEAR TIMEELIMINATION FOR THE --LIMITATION FOR THE VASTMAJORITY OF DECISIONS RENDRD INTHE TRIAL COURTS.>> AND I RETURN TO MY ARGUMENTTHIS IS IN THE NATURE OF ASENTENCE EVEN FIT IS NOT -->> ARE EVEN CERTAIN SENTENCESTHAT CANNOT BE APPEALED TWOYEARS LATER.IT HAS TO BE AN ILLEGALSENTENCE FROM THE RECORDWITHOUT ANY TESTIMONY ORANYTHING ADDITIONAL THAT YOUCAN DO IT AFTER TWO YEARS ANDTHE VAST MAJORITY EVEN OFSENTENCES ARE CONTAINED WITHINTHE TWO-YEAR TIME LIMITATION.>> AND ONE COULD EXAMINE THERECORD WITHOUT TAKING ANYTESTIMONY AND MAKE A DECISIONABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THISSEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATION WAS



PROPERLY IMPOSED IN A GIVENCASE AND ONE COULD DO THAT.>> THAT MAY BE TRUE IN SOMECASES AND NOT OTHER, WOULDN'TYOU SAY?>> NO.>> IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CASE.>> I DON'T THINK SO.THE RECORD WILL SHOW.THERE IS ONE PROBLEM AND THATIS THE PROBLEM JUSTICE PARIENTEMENTIONED, IF -- JUSTICE AMSTEAD IF THE UNDERLYINGCONVICTIONS WERE NOT QUALIFIESCONVICTIONS, THAT IS ONE SORTOF PROBLEM AND EVEN IN THATCLASSIC CASE, WHAT I'M HEARINGFROM THE COURT IS THAT THEREOUGHT NOT TO BE A REMEDY UNDER3.800 AND THAT IS THE PERSONWHO HAS BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONALLYDESIGNATED AS A SEXUALPREDATOR.>> WHAT YOU ARE HEARING IS THATWE ARE ASKING YOU TO FIT THISWITHIN THE WAY THAT WE HADDESCRIBED THIS REMEDY OF3.800A.FOR INSTANCE, HAVE YOU ARGUEDHERE THAT THE TRIAL COURT LASTJURISDICTION, LOST AUTHORITY TOEVER IMPOSE THIS CLASSIFICATIONAFTER 30 DAYS OR, YOU KNOW,AFTER THE TIME OF APPEAL -->> I CAN'T -->> IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT HAVEYOU ARGUED OR ASSERTED WHICH ISYOUR BURDEN UNDER THIS RULE TOSAY YOU FIRST SAY, WE ARECLAIMING THAT THIS IS ANILLEGAL SENTENCE, FOR PURPOSESOF RULE 3.800A.BECAUSE -- AND WHAT THIS IS"BECAUSE" HERE?>> WELL, THE "BECAUSE" ALLEGEDIN THE MOTION IS BECAUSE ITWASN'T PART OF THE NEGOTIATEDPLEA.AND THAT IS A SEPARATE LEGALQUESTION THAT IS NOT AT THISMOMENT REALLY BEFORE THE COURT.AND I SEE I'M RUNNING INTO MYTIME -->> ALREADY EXHAUSTED ALL OF



YOUR TIME.THANK YOU VERY MUCH.WE HAVE THE STATE.>> GOOD MORNING, MATE PLEASETHE COURT, DANIEL IN MAN,ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ONBEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT AND WEARE ASKING THE COURT TO AFFIRMTHE DECISION OF THE -->> DOES THE STATE REALLY HAVEAN INTEREST IN WANTING TO HAVEDEFENDANTS WHO REALLY HAVE ALEGITIMATE GRIPE, WHICH IS\\$$ISPDRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSEAND GETS SEXUAL PREDATOR STATUS,TO HAVE TO FILE A CIVIL CLAIMOR WHATEVER?IN OTHER WORDS, SENT BETTER TOFASHION SOMETHING THAT FITSWITHIN THE CRIMINAL CONTEXTWHERE MOEZ OF THESE SITUATIONS-- MOST OF THESE SITUATIONS AREIMPOSED THROUGH THIS CRIMINALCOURT, TO THE FUTURE?I MEAN, IS THE STATE POSITIONREALLY TO TAKE KING OUT ANDJUST TO SAY FILE THIS AS ACIVIL DIVISION COMPLAINT FORDECLARATORY RELIEF.>> CERTAINLY THAT WOULD BEWITHIN THE RULE MAKINGAUTHORITY OF THIS COURT.CERTAINLY 300A IS NOT THECORRECT REMEDY.>> WOULDN'T IT BE THE CORRECTREMEDY, THOUGH, FOR SOME OF THE-- AND AGAIN, I THINK EACH OFTHE COURTS, WHEN THEY ARETRYING TO FATHOM A REMEDY THEYLOOK AT WHAT THE WRONG IS ANDAGAIN THE CLASSIC WOULD BE IMEAN, IT IS A PRETTYSIGNIFICANT DESIGNATION, SEXUALPREDATOR DESIGNATION, YOU WOULDAGREE WITH THAT.>> SIGNIFICANT BURDEN.>> CLEARLY NOBODY IN THE WORLDCOULD ARGUE THAT IT WASN'T AQUALIFYING OFFENSE, DOESN'T THE-- OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE HAVEAN INTEREST IN THAT NARROW,VERY, VERY NARROWCLASSIFICATION OF CASES, THATTHAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT



COULD BE CHALLENGED OR DOES THESTATE SAY, NO, IF THEDEFENDANT, YOU KNOW, MISSES THETWO YEARS, THAT THEY ARE OUT?>> WELL, RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD BEOUR POSITION THATMR. SAINTELIEN DOES HAVEADEQUATE REMEDIES BY WAY OFDIRECT APPEAL.I WOULD MENTION THAT -->> LET'S GO OVER THE DIRECTAPPEAL.DO YOU AGREE THAT HE COULD HAVEAPPEALED THAT PART OF WHAT HEIS NOW COMPLAINING OF IN THECRIMINAL APPEAL?CAN CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS AS PARTOF THEIR CRIMINAL APPEAL,HAVING AN ASSISTANT PUBLICDEFENDER REPRESENTING THEMAPPEAL SEXUAL PREDATORDESIGNATION?>> YES, JUSTICE PARIENTE UNDER9.140B 1D CAN FILE AN APPEALAND APPEAL THE ORDER OF THETRIAL COURT.>> BUT IS IT PART OF SOMETHINGTHE PUBLIC DEFENDER CANREPRESENT THEM BECAUSE IT ISSTILL PART OF THE CRIMINALSENTENCE?INTO AND MAYBE THAT WOULD MAKEA DIFFERENCE WHETHER ITHAPPENED AT SENTENCING OR AFTERSENTENCING AS IT HAPPENED INTHAT CASE.I'M NOT TOO SURE OF THATDISTINCTION.CERTAINLY THE CRIMINALDEFENDANT UNDER WHATEVERREPRESENTATION DOES HAVE ARIGHT TO APPEAL THAT.>> SO IT IS PART OF THECRIMINAL -->> THE PROBLEM WE HAVE,OBVIOUSLY, IS THE -- ALL OFTHESE CASES OUT THERE, THAT SAYTHAT THE DESIGNATION IS NOTPART OF THE SENTENCE ORPUNISHMENT.>> EXACTLY.>> AND SO IF -- EITHER WE HAVETO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THATLANGUAGE, OR WILL HAVE TO CRAFT



A WAY TO DEAL WITH IT.ARE WE NOT.>> JUSTICE WELLS I'M NOT SUREIF IT REALLY HAS BEEN SHOWN TOBE A PROBLEM.DIRECT APPEAL, THAT WOULD BETHE TIME FOR THE CRIMINALDEFENDANT TO RAISE THIS, FORWHATEVER REASON MR. SAINTELIENDIDN'T DO THAT, THAT IS WHERETRIAL ERROR IS REVIEWEDINDIRECT APPEAL.>> BUT I'M ASKING IF IT'S NOTPART OF THE CRIMINAL SENTENCE,THEN AND MAYBE IF THE STATEDOESN'T OBJECT TO IT, WHY IS ITGOING TO BE RAISED PER THECRIMINAL APPEAL BECAUSE WERECOGNIZE IT IS PART AND PARCELOF THAT BUNDLE OF BURDENS THATARE -- OCCUR AT LEAST AT THETIME OF SENTENCE AND THE STATEIS OBJECTING -- ONE MORE ISSUEAND I THOUGHT ONE OF THE 2ndDISTRICT CASES IT SAID THAT THELAWYER SAID AN ANDREWS CASE ANCOULDN'T RAISE IT AND WE DONEED TO CLARIFY THIS.IT'S NOT -- U IT'S NOT APROBLEM.LOOKS LIKE A PROBLEM IF YOULOOK INTO JUDGE -->> AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECTUNDER 9.140B 1D, A DEFENDANTMAY APPEAL ORDERS ENTERED AFTERFINAL JUDGMENT AND SO I THINKIT IS VERY CLEAR MR. SAINTELIENHAD A RIGHT FOR DIRECT APPEALWITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER ENTRY OFTHE ORDER DECLARING HIM ASEXUAL PREDATOR FOR WHATEVERREASON HE DIDN'T EXERCISE HISRIGHT TO DIRECT APPEAL.UNDER EXTRAORDINARYCIRCUMSTANCES, PERHAPS HE ALSOHAS A RIGHT TO DELAY APPEAL AND-- A LITTLE BITED APPEAL AND HEDID NOT, AND AS FAR AS THECIVIL RIM MAIDS, I DON'TBELIEVE THAT THOSE AREINADEQUATE, I DON'T BELIEVE ITIS SHOWN THAT IS INADEQUATE --I WOULD CITE RULE 1.540,RELEASE FROM JUDGMENT.



>> WHICH IS INCONGRUOUS TO SAYSOMEBODY HAS TO EXERCISE CIVILREMEDIES WHEN THESE ORDERS AREGENERAL ENTERED AS PART OF THECRIMINAL CASE WITH THE CRIMINALCASE NUMBER.IF IT IS DONE IN THAT CONTEXT,THEN IT MAY BE A SEPARATEPROBLEM WITH ORDERS ISSUED INTHE CIVIL COMMITMENT CONTEXTBUT IF IN A CRIMINAL CONTEXTWHY DID WE FORCE THE DEFENDANTSTO FILE A CIVIL ACTION, DO WEDO THAT IN ANY OTHER AREA OFCRIMINAL LAW?EVEN POSTCONVICTION HABEASCASES ARE ALL DONE IN THECRIMINAL CONTEXT THOUGH WE SAIDTHEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY CRIMINAL,THEY ARE QUASI-CRIMINAL, WHYISN'T THIS A QUASI-CRIMINALTYPE OF PROCEEDING.>> BECAUSE IT'S NOT A SENTENCEAND THAT IS WHAT THEDISTINCTION IS BETWEEN ASENTENCE AND COLLATERALCONSEQUENCE.>> I UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT ASENTENCE BUT IT ISN'T A CIVILCASE, EITHER, DONE IN THECONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL CASE.>> FINDING MADE BY THE CRIMINALCOURT JUDGE.>> IN THAT VEIN, EVEN IF THEDEPARTMENT IS THE ONE AND SAYS,LOOK THIS PERSON QUALIFIES ASTHE SEXUAL PREDATOR BECAUSE OFTHE OUT OF STATE CONVICTION,YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE CRIMINALCOURT, DON'T YOU, IN ORDER TOGET THIS PERSON DESIGNATEDTHAT'S SEXUAL PREDATOR.>> YES, JUSTICE.>> AND SO, AND IT IS WHY, IF ITIS THIS CRIMINAL COURT THAT ISMAKING THE DECISION THAT THISPERSON IS A SEXUAL PREDATOR,WHY WOULD YOU SAY, OKAY THECRIMINAL COURT HAS DONE THIS,BUT YOU IN ORDER TO HAVE ACRIMINAL REMEDY HAVE TO GO TOTHE CIVIL COURT.>> BUT IN THAT CASE YOU'D HAVEA REMEDY OF DIRECT APPEAL FROM



AN ORDER OF A CRIMINAL COURTAND HE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVETHAT REMEDY AND SO -->> YOU GET BACK TO JUSTICEPARIENTE'S QUESTION IF YOU HAVEA RIGHT TO A DIRECT APPEAL ANDHAVE A PUBLIC DEFENDERREPRESENT YOU AND ALL OF THAT,WHY ISN'T ALL OF THIS REALLY INTHE NATURE OF A CRIMINALPROCEEDING.>> I DID NOT MAKE THECONCESSION THE PUBLIC DEFENDERWOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TOREPRESENT THE DEFENDANT AND IWAS SAYING IF IT HAPPENED WITHTHE SENTENCING IT WOULD BE ANISSUE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER -->> WHO WOULD REPRESENT THEDEFENDANT, IF THE STATEATTORNEY GOES BEFORE THE COURTAND ASKS THE COURT TO MAKE SOME-- TO DESIGNATE SOMEONE AS ASEXUAL PREDATOR, WHO WOULD INFACT REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT?>> HE WOULD PROCEED PRO SE IFHE IS AN OUT OF STATEDEFENDANT, THE SCENARIO YOUMENTIONED, JUSTICE QUINCE, IFHE CAME FROM OUT OF STATE ANDWAS A SEXUAL PREDATOR INANOTHER STATED, ALASKA AND FIVEYEARS LATER CAME IN TO FLORIDAAND WAS DECLARED A SEXUALPREDATOR BY A FLORIDA COURT -->> CRIMINAL COURT.>> YES.BEFORE A CRIMINAL COURT, HE WASTAKEN -- AND HE WOULD NOT.>> HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE APUBLIC DEFENDER APPOINTED TOREPRESENT HIM.>> NO, THE SENTENCE IS NOTBEING IMPOSED.THAT IS -- THERE IS A SENTENCEAND COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCE ANDAGAIN THIS IS JUST A COLLATERALCONSEQUENCE AND THE SENTENCEWAS IMPOSED BY A FLORIDA COURTAND -->> AND IN THE OVERWHELMINGWOULD YOU BE OF CASES, THESEARE BEING IMPOSED NOW AS PARTOF THE SENTENCING PROCESS.



IS THAT CORRECT.>> YES.AND THAT IS THE INTENTION OFTHE STATUTE.>> I THOUGHT AND YOU CANCORRECT ME, ALTHOUGH WE SAIDSEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATION WASNOT A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE, WEDID -- I THOUGHT WE REFERREDTHIS TO THE RULES COMMITTEE,FOR A REQUEST THAT THIS BE PARTOF THE PLEA COLLOQUY.DO YOU KNOW, AM I INCORRECTABOUT THAT OR DO YOU KNOW THESTATUS OF ANY SUCH REFERRAL?I MAY BE CONFUSING IT WITHSOMETHING ELSE.>> NO, THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGEAND I BELIEVE IT WAS THE KINGDECISION, THAT THOFT SECONDDISTRICT AND GOING ON MEMORYNOW, THEY REFERRED IT TO ARULES COMMITTEE, AND NOTHINGCAME OF THAT AND I DON'T RECALLTHIS COURT MAKING SUCH AREFERENCE.>> NOT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE,ON THE ISSUE THAT WHETHER THEDEFENDANTS IN THE FUTURE WOULDBE NOTIFIED AT THE TIME OF THEPLEA COLLOQUY, OF SEXUALPREDATOR CONSEQUENCES.>> I DON'T RECALL, JUSTICE -->> ALL RIGHT.NOW, AS FAR AS -- THE ISSUESEEMS TO BE THIS IS A SOLUTIONTHAT IS -- NEEDS A SOLUTIONTHAT IS WORKABLE AND MAY NEEDITS OWN RULES AND WHAT CONCERNSME IS ALMOST EVERY TIME WEREFER SOMETHING TO THE RULES OFCRIMINAL PROCEDURE COMMITTEE WEGET BACK THAT THEY CAN'T COMEUP WITH SOMETHING AND THAT ISAPPARENTLY -- THEY CONSIDEREDIT AND COULDN'T COME UP WITH AWORKABLE RULE.NOW, TO ME, THIS IS SOMETHINGTHAT IT SEEMS THE STATE AND THEPUBLIC DEFENDERS CAN SIT DOWNWITH AND HELP THE COURT OUT,INCOMING UP WITH A WORKABLERULE.THAT IS FAIR TO A SITUATION



WHERE I CAN'T BELIEVE THE STATEWOULD SAY SOMEBODY TEN YEARSLATER CAN FIND THEY SHOULDNEVER HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS ASEXUAL PREDATOR AND WE AREGOING SAY WE NEED THEM TO GOFILE A CIVIL ACTION AND, YOUKNOW, GO BEFORE A CIVIL COURT.SO, DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TOBELIEVE THAT A WORKABLE RULECANNOT BE DEVELOPED IN -- FORTHIS SITUATION?>> WELL, NO, IT WOULD BE BEYONDMY SCOPE TO REPRESENT THAT ASOUR POSITION TODAY AND IT ISNOT OUR POSITION TODAY THATTHERE ARE SUFFICIENT REMEDIESAND AGAIN, I WOULD COME BACK TOTHE RIGHT TO DIRECT THE --DIRECT APPEAL.I MEAN, FIT WAS TRULY SOMETHINGTHAT THE COURT DID THAT WASILLEGAL AND MR. SAINTELIEN ORANY SIMILARLY SITUATEDDEFENDANT WAS BEING DECLARED ASEXUAL PREDATOR FOR THEINCORRECT OFFENSES AND DIDN'THAVE A EFFICIENT -- WASN'T AREQUISITE OFFENSE WHY COULDTHAT NOT BE RAISED ON THEDIRECT APPEAL AND CLEARLY, YOUHAVE -- YOU DON'T -->> YOU AGREE -->> HE PLED GUILTY, GENERALLYYOU DON'T HAVE AN APPEAL RIGHTIN A GUILTY PLEA SITUATION.SO HE HAS HAD -- WOULD HE HAVEHAD THE RIGHT TO FILE IT IF ITHAD BEEN DONE AT THE SAMETOMORROW THAT THE GUILTY PLEAWAS ENTERED.>> AND WHO WOULD HAVEREPRESENTED HIM?>> IF HE WAS OBJECTING TO IT --IF HE OBJECTED TO IT ANDPRESERVED THAT OBJECTION ITCOULD BE BROUGHT UP AS ERROR.I THINK SITUATIONS ARE ALLDIFFERENT, HE WAS REPRESENTEDBY THE PUBLIC DEVELOPEDDER ATTHE TIME, PERHAPS THE PUBLICDEFENDER WOULD REPRESENT HIM ONAPPEAL.I MEAN, THAT IS A POSSIBLE



SCENARIO.I THINK MR. SAINTELIEN'S CASETHAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED, THEPLEA WENT -- STILL DON'T HAVEANY PROBLEM WITH THE SENTENCE,HE'S NOT EVEN ATTACKING THESENTENCE.HE'S NOT SAYING IT'S AN ILLEGALSENTENCE, HE IS ATTACKING THESEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATION.>> THIS IS THE ILLEGAL SENTENCEBECAUSE IT WAS NOT A PART OFWHAT HE HAD BARGAINED FOR.WHEN HE ENTERED HIS GUILTYPLEA.>> AND HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITHTHE DOC PART OF THE SENTENCE,PROBATION PART OF THE SENTENCEAND THE PROBLEM IS LIMITED TOTHE SEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATIONOF COURSE.>> AND IN THIS CASE THE JUDGEIMPOSED THE DEZ NATION AFTERTHE SENTENCE, AFTER THE PLEA ATSOME -->> SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER.>> AND YOU AGREE I THINKEARLIER YOU AGREED THAT THEDEFENDANT COULD HAVE APPEALEDTHAT DESIGNATION UNDER 9.140B1D AS AN ORDER ENTERED AFTERJUDGMENT.>> YES.THAT IS CLEAR.>> I BELIEVE IT'S THE KING CASE,THE COURT DECIDED MR. KING WASDESIGNATED SEXUAL PREDATORUNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THELAW DOES NOT PERMIT THEDESIGNATION BUT NEVERTHELESS,FILED A DIRECT APPEAL, HISATTORNEY FIND AN ANDREWS BRIEFAND POINTED OUT THE DESIGNATIONAS A SEXUAL PREDATOR WASIMPROPER AND HIS LAWYERCONCLUDED THE ISSUE COULDN'T BERAISED ON DIRECT APPEAL ANDTHIS IS WHERE AGAIN I THINK WEGET TRULY INTO AN ALICE INWONDERLAND TYPE OF SITUATION.I MEAN, I'M NOT ASKING YOUBECAUSE I'M SURE YOU -->> YES.>> LAWYER IN THE INITIAL KING



CASE BUT THIS IS WHAT I THINKLED THE 2nd DISTRICT TO BEFRUSTRATED.>> PRECISELY AND THREW UP THEIRHANDS I THINK BASED ON THIS,WITH THE PROCEDURAL HISTORYTHAT YOU WERE RELATING, THAT ISEXACTLY -->> YOU WOULD AGREE MR. KINGWHEN HE FILED HIS DIRECT APPEAL,HIS ATTORNEY COULD HAVE INSTEADOF JUST FILING THE ANDERS BRIEFAND POINTING IT OUT OR IF THE2nd DISTRICT LOOKED AT THAT ANDSAID WAIT THAT IS A MERITORIOUSISSUE THEY COULD HAVE -->> RAISED -- THE ATTORNEYSHOULD HAVE CHALLENGED IT ANDPERHAPS WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN AKING DECISION, WORDED LIKETHAT.>> COULD HAVE FILED ASINEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OFCOUNSEL CLAIM -- I'M JUSTKIDDING!>> WELL, SOME CLAIMS OFILLEGALITY DEALING WITH THESEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATION CANBE THE SUBJECT OF 3.800APROCEEDINGS, WHY SHOULDN'T ALLCLAIMS, IF IT IS A CLAIM OFILLEGALITY BE TREATED UNDERHERE AND THEN DEALT WITH ON THEMERITS, THAT IS, I ASSUME THATTHE STATE WOULD NOT ARGUE THATIF THERE WAS A SEXUAL PREDATORDESIGNATION AND THEN YOU JUSTLOOKED AT THE OFFENSE, AT THE-- THAT PERSON WAS CONVICTED OF,RECKLESS DRIVING, AND FOUND OUTTHEN JUST SAID, WELL, THAT HADTO BE A MISTAKE THEN AND THATIS CLEARLY ILLEGAL, TO DO THAT,THAT -- WHY -- WOULD THAT BETREATABLE UNDER 3.800A?THERE IT IS ON THE FACE OF THERECORD, HERE'S AN APPELLATEOPINION, FROM THE FLORIDASUPREME COURT THAT SAYS YOUCAN'T IMPOSE SEXUAL PREDATORDESIGNATION ON A RECKLESSDRIVING CONVICTION.AND SO, WOULD THAT BE TREATABLEUNDER 3.800A.



>> IT MIGHT BE A REGRETTABLESITUATION.I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULDBE TREATABLE UNDER 400A ANDTHAT IS NOT THE CASE WE HAVENEAR.>> WHY NOT?IT MEETS ALL OF THE -- IN OTHERWORDS WE HAVE GIVEN OUT AFORMULA ILL LEE GALTED AN UNDEROUR LAW, NO JUDGE UNDER ANYCIRCUMSTANCES COULD IMPOSE THESEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATION ONA CONVICTION FOR RECKLESSDRIVING.>> THAT IS TRUE.SO WHY WOULDN'T THAT QUALITYIE.>> IT'S NOT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE,P00A IS FOR ILLEGAL SENTENCE.>> IT COMES BACK TO THE ISSUEOF, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAVE ISTHAT THE CRIMINAL COURT JUDGEIN THIS CRIMINAL CASE ALL RIGHTHAS DONE THAT AND ALL OF OURPOLICY HAS BEEN WHEN YOU WANTTO COME BACK ON POSTCONVICTIONWE WANT TO CHANNEL YOU BACK TOTHAT SAME VENUE AND THAT SAMEFORCE WE DON'T WANT ONE JUDGEAND ANOTHER DIVISION OF THECOURT SAYING TO THE JUDGE OVERHERE, IN THE CRIMINAL DIVISION,YOU KNOW, YOU DID SOMETHINGWRONG OR WHATEVER, SO ALL OFOUR POLICY HAS BEEN TO CHANNELTHESE THINGS BACK, HOPEFULLYLOGICALLY, OKAY?AND WHY WOULDN'T THANAPPROPRIATE TO DO UNDER THEHYPOTHETICAL I GAVE YOU, YOUKNOW, NOT TALKING ABOUT THECASE YET.>> BECAUSE I THINK THAT ADEFENDANT, CRIMINAL DEFENDANTCOULD STILL HAVE A REMEDY INFRONT OF A COURT WITH CIVILRELIEF.>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT,I'M TALK ABOUT WHY WOULDN'T ITBE APPROPRIATE IF ALL YOU NEEDTO DO IS LOOK AND KNOW IT FITSOUR DEFINITION, OF THE KIND OFCASE THAT SHOP PROPER FOR3.800A RELIEF AND GET RID OF



THE SEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATIONSINCE RECKLESS DRIVING IS NOT AQUALIFYING OFFENSE.>> IN THOSE VERY RARE CASES, IDON'T THINK IT FITS WITHIN THE3800A IF THE COURT THINKS OFFASHIONING A RULE TO ADDRESSTHOSE LIMITED CASES.>> THE STATE'S POSITION THEN ISTHERE IS NO ILLEGALITYINVOLVING THE SEXUAL PREDATORDESIGNATION THAT WHATEVER --WOULD EVER QUALIFY FOR 3.800ARELIEF.>> AND YOU ADOPT THE POSITIONAND MYERS, THE MOST RECENT CASE--BOYER, AND MR. BOYER WASALLEGING HE DIDN'T HAVE THEPREDICATE OFFENSE AND THE FIRSTDCA HELD POSTCONVICTION RELIEFIS NOT AVAILABLE AND HAD TOPURSUE INJUNCTIVE ORDECLARATORY RELIEF IN THE CIVILACTION.>> YES.WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BEIN SUFFICIENT IN MR. BOYER'SCASE.AND ANOTHER PROBLEM IS THE3800A, YOU COULD BE BROUGHT ATANY TIME, CLEARLY, NOT THE TYPEOF CHALLENGE WE'RE HAVING THIS.I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE HAVELIMITATIONS ON 3850s, IF THISCOURT IS CONSIDERING A RULEWITHIN THE CRIMINAL RULES TOADDRESS THE TYPE OF SITUATION-->> LET ME UNDERSTAND YOURANSWER TO JUSTICE AM STEAD'SQUESTION, IS, THAT THE STATE'SPOSITION IS NOT THAT THEDESIGNATION AS FAR AS THERECKLESS DRIVING IS NOT ILLEGAL,IT'S NOT A SENTENCE, IS THATTHE POSITION OF THE STATE?>> IT IS NOT A SNS AND NOT ANILLEGAL SENTENCE AN MIGHT HAVEBEEN TRIAL COURT ERROR.I MEAN, I WOULD CONCEDE THATTHAT WOULD BE TRIAL COURT ERRORBUT ONCE WE HAVE TRIAL COURTERROR WHAT IS THE REMEDY.



>> YOU TAKE THE POSITION THATJUDGE GRIFFIN WROTE INNICHOLSON THAT IT WAS AN ERRORIN SENTENCING AS OPPOSED TO ANILLEGAL SENTENCE?>> IT WOULD BE AN ERROR EITHERIN THE SENTENCING, PROCEEDINGAT THE TIME OF SENTENCING OR,AGAIN COULD BE DONE AFTERSENTENCING, WELL AFTERSENTENCING AS WELL, SO, I WOULDCONCEDE UNDER THAT SCENARIO ITCERTAINLY IS TRIAL COURT ERRORBECAUSE THE PERSON WAS NOTSUPPOSED TO BE DESIGNATED ASEXUAL PREDATOR AND HE WAS ANDCERTAINLY THAT IS -->> -- INSTEAD OF DESIGNATINGHIM A SEXUAL PREDATOR, WHAT IFHE SAID YOU ARE HERE BY ORDEREDTO PUT A BUMPER STICKER ON THEBACK OF YOUR CAR THAT SAYS, IAM A SEXUAL PREDATOR.OKAY.COULD HE CHALLENGE THAT.>> HE -- ANSWER THIS QUESTION,YOU HAVE EXHAUSTED YOUR TIME,BUT JUST ANSWER THAT QUESTION,ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION,PRECISELY.>> JUSTICE AM STEAD IF IT ISNOT A SENTENCE I DO NOT BELIEVETHE PERSON AS A REMEDY UNDER3.800 AND IN THAT SITUATION ORANY SITUATION WHERE THE ERRORIS SO EGREGIOUS, NOT MR. IS ITTHE LEAN'S CASE, BECAUSE THEREIS NO ERROR THERE, THEN THETRIAL COURT DID SOMETHING THATFAR BEYOND THE RULES, WHY WOULDTHE PERSON NOT TAKE A DIRECTAPPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AS HE CANUNDER THE RULES AND THEN NOTPERHAPS SEEK A A LITTLE BITEDAPPEAL THROUGH SOME OTHER THINGTHAT WAS DONE AFTER, AND THATIS HIS REMEDY, THE -- TO SEEK A-- AN APPEAL.AND THAT WOULD BE MY ANSWER,WHY WOULD THAT PERSON NOT SEEKAN APPEAL IF SOMETHING WAS DONETHAT, GREEJS BY THE TRIALCOURT.>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH I'M



GOING TO GIVE YOU ANOTHERMINUTE TO GIVE YOUR CONCLUDINGTHAUTSD, YOU HAVE EXHAUSTED ALLYOUR TIME BUT OR QUESTIONINGUSED UP MOST OF YOUR TIME, GIVEUS YOUR CONCISE -->> THANK YOU.>> FINAL THOUGHTS.>> I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TOTHE STATE'S ARGUMENT THAT IF ADIRECT APPEAL REMEDY ISAPPROPRIATE.THE PROBLEM IS THERE IS NOREQUIREMENT THAT A DEFENDANT BEPRESENT FOR A HEARING TO IMPOSEA SEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATIONTHAT OCCURS SUBSEQUENT TO THESENTENCING AND NO REQUIREMENTUNDER THE STATUTE OR THE RULESTHAT A DEFENDANT BE GIVEN ACOPY OF AN ORDER IMPOSING HIMAS A SEXUAL PREDATOR AND THEREIS NO REQUIREMENT THAT ADEFENDANT WHO IS NOTNECESSARILY EVEN THERE, BEADVISED THAT HE HAS A RIGHT OFDIRECT APPEAL.SO THAT MAY BE ONE AVAILABLEREMEDY TO SOME PEOPLE WHOHAPPEN TO BE THERE AND KNOWWHAT IS GOING ON BUT CANNOTFAIRLY BE THE ONLY REMEDY FORDEFENDANTS IN THIS SITUATION.>> THANK YOU.>> THE COURT WILL TAKE THE CASEUNDER ADVISEMENT.THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOURTIME.

Renoit Saintelien v. State of Florida SC06-1888 · sc06-1888 >> please rise. hear ye hear ye hear...

Documents

Transcript of Renoit Saintelien v. State of Florida SC06-1888 · sc06-1888 >> please rise. hear ye hear ye hear...