Larimore v. Attorney General State of Florida
3:14-cv-00660
| M.D. Fla. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- Petitioner William Todd Larimore was convicted in 1991 of lewd and lascivious acts on a child; in 2011 he pled guilty to non-sexually-violent offenses and was serving an 18-month sentence when the State filed a Jimmy Ryce Act (JRA) petition to civilly commit him as a sexually violent predator.
- Larimore previously challenged a 2004 JRA proceeding; the Florida Supreme Court dismissed that petition for lack of jurisdiction because Larimore was not in lawful custody when it was filed, and he was released; later he was re-incarcerated on new offenses.
- A new multidisciplinary team in 2011 recommended JRA commitment; Larimore moved to dismiss on res judicata/collateral estoppel grounds, which the trial court denied; the First DCA affirmed that denial.
- A jury in February 2012 found Larimore to be a sexually violent predator under the JRA; Larimore appealed, counsel filed an Anders brief, and the First DCA per curiam affirmed in 2013.
- Larimore filed this federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming his prior convictions do not qualify as sexually violent offenses and thus his civil detention under the JRA violates due process; the district court denied the petition and declined to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Larimore’s convictions qualify to support JRA commitment | Lewd and lascivious convictions did not qualify as sexual predator offenses at time of sentencing (relying on Therrien) | JRA defines qualifying sexually violent offenses broadly; prior lewd and lascivious convictions can qualify for JRA commitment | Court: Convictions can qualify under the JRA; Larimore’s claim lacks merit |
| Whether prior dismissal (2004) bars new JRA petition (res judicata/collateral estoppel) | The earlier dismissal precludes relitigation | Earlier dismissal was jurisdictional and not a merits determination of sexually violent predator status | Court: Trial court and First DCA correctly denied dismissal; state may proceed |
| Whether JRA commitment violates double jeopardy / is punitive | Civil nature of JRA still punishes petitioner in substance | JRA is civil and remedial, not criminal punishment | Court: JRA is civil; double jeopardy claim fails |
| Need for evidentiary hearing on habeas | Petitioner sought an evidentiary hearing to develop facts | Respondents opposed; record is adequate | Court: No hearing warranted; record resolves claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (evidentiary hearing standard on habeas)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (federal habeas reviews federal constitutional claims)
- Therrien v. State, 914 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2005) (holding sexual predator designation requires qualifying offense at time of sentencing)
- Ward v. State, 986 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2008) (JRA commitment may be based on prior sexually violent conviction even if current custody is for non-sexual offense)
- Selig v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 (civil statute characterization affects double jeopardy claim)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (civil commitment of sexually violent predators upheld)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedures for counsel filing brief when no nonfrivolous issues exist)
- Jones v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, 834 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2016) (habeas burden re: evidentiary hearings)