Rickman v. State, 871 So. 2d 310

PER CURIAM.

Paul D. Rickman appeals his designation as a sexual predator pursuant to section 775.21, Florida Statutes (2002), Florida‘s Sexual Predator Act, (“FSPA“). Rickman relies on Espindola v. State, 855 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), in support of his allegation that the FSPA violates procedural due process by not providing a hearing before classifying a defendant as a sexual predator.

All of the other district courts have disagreed with Espindola and have certified conflict as we do now in the instant case. See Martin v. State, 864 So.2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Frazier v. State, ___ So.2d ___, 2004 WL 221043, 29 Fla. L.Weekly D369 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.6, 2004); Miller v. State, 861 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Reyes v. State, 854 So.2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Milks v. State, 848 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), rev. granted, 859 So.2d 514 (Fla.2003). See also Connecticut Dep‘t of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 155 L.Ed.2d 98 (2003).

The designation is affirmed.

AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.

PETERSON, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Rickman v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Apr 30, 2004

Citations: 871 So. 2d 310; 2004 WL 912376; 5D03-2073

Docket Number: 5D03-2073

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.