Narrative Opinion Summary
Edward David Woodard entered a nolo contendere plea for failing to register as a sexual predator, while reserving the right to appeal on procedural due process grounds regarding the constitutionality of the Florida Sexual Predators Act. Woodard's due process argument references the case of Espindola v. State, which conflicts with the court's earlier decision in Milks v. State. The court rejected Woodard's due process argument, affirmed his judgment and sentence, and certified the conflict with Espindola. Judges Northcutt and Davis concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Conflict Certification Between Judicial Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court acknowledged a conflict between Espindola v. State and Milks v. State, thereby certifying the conflict for further review.
Reasoning: The court rejected Woodard's due process argument, affirmed his judgment and sentence, and certified the conflict with Espindola.
Constitutionality of the Florida Sexual Predators Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Woodard challenged the constitutionality of the Florida Sexual Predators Act as part of his appeal, highlighting a conflict between existing case law.
Reasoning: Woodard's due process argument references the case of Espindola v. State, which conflicts with the court's earlier decision in Milks v. State.
Procedural Due Process in Criminal Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed Woodard's procedural due process challenge to the Florida Sexual Predators Act but ultimately rejected the argument, affirming his judgment and sentence.
Reasoning: The court rejected Woodard's due process argument, affirmed his judgment and sentence, and certified the conflict with Espindola.