03-1829 STATE V. CLEVELAND BRYANT

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 3d03-1829

Case Date: 05/11/2005

Plaintiff: 03-1829 STATE

Defendant: CLEVELAND BRYANT

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2005 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. CLEVELAND BRYANT, Appellee. ** ** ** ** ** ** Opinion filed May 11, 2005. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rosa I. Rodriguez, Judge. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Mielke, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Thomas c. LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 75-5646 CASE NO. 3D03-1829

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Godfrey, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee. Before COPE, FLETCHER and WELLS, JJ. COPE, J. The State appeals a final judgment after a jury verdict finding that respondent Cleveland Bryant was not a sexually

violent

predator

for

purposes

of

the

Jimmy

Ryce

Act.

We

conclude that there was an error in the jury instructions which requires a new trial. I. There is a threshold question whether the Jimmy Ryce Act1 allows a state appeal where there has been a jury determination that a person is not a sexually violent predator. After the State filed its notice of appeal, respondentappellee Cleveland Bryant moved to dismiss the appeal. He

argued that under the terms of the Act, a state appeal is not allowed. opinion. The parties briefed the case. In the answer brief, Bryant A motion panel of this court denied the motion without

again argued that as a matter of law, the Act precludes a state appeal. At oral argument, the State contended that this court's earlier denial of the motion to dismiss constituted the law of the case, and that Bryant was thereafter barred from raising the issue. The State is incorrect.

Under this court's long-standing practice, an order which denies a motion to dismiss the appeal without opinion is an interlocutory ruling which may be revisited by the merits panel. See Hialeah Hotel, Inc. v. Woods, 778 So. 2d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d
1

Download 3d03-1829.pdf