Narrative Opinion Summary
Walter William Moran's appeals regarding his convictions for two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation have been affirmed, along with the trial court's designation of him as a sexual predator. Moran argues that this designation infringed on his procedural due process rights, citing Espindola v. State, 855 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). However, the court references its prior decision in Rickman v. State, 871 So.2d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), which upheld the constitutionality of such designations without violating due process. The court also certifies a conflict with the Espindola decision. The ruling is affirmed, with Judges Sharp and Griffin concurring.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Convictions for Lewd and Lascivious Molestationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed Walter William Moran's convictions for lewd and lascivious molestation.
Reasoning: Walter William Moran's appeals regarding his convictions for two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation have been affirmed.
Certification of Conflict Between District Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court certified a conflict between its decision and the decision in Espindola v. State, indicating a legal disagreement that may necessitate further judicial review.
Reasoning: The court also certifies a conflict with the Espindola decision.
Designation as a Sexual Predatorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's designation of Moran as a sexual predator was affirmed, signifying that such a designation is consistent with existing legal standards.
Reasoning: Walter William Moran's appeals regarding his convictions for two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation have been affirmed, along with the trial court's designation of him as a sexual predator.
Procedural Due Process in Sexual Predator Designationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the designation of Moran as a sexual predator did not violate procedural due process rights, referencing precedent that supports the constitutionality of such designations.
Reasoning: Moran argues that this designation infringed on his procedural due process rights, citing Espindola v. State, 855 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). However, the court references its prior decision in Rickman v. State, 871 So.2d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), which upheld the constitutionality of such designations without violating due process.