03-1384 PEARSON V. STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 03-1384 PEARSON V. STATE

Case Date: 11/24/2004

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 JULY TERM, A.D. 2004

FRANK JEROME PEARSON, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D03-1384 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 85-29975

Opinion filed November 24, 2004. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Jacqueline Hogan Scola, Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Roy A. Heimlich, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Jennifer Falcone Moore, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before COPE and GODERICH, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM. Frank Jerome Pearson appeals an order involuntarily committing him as a sexually violent predator under the Jimmy Ryce Act, Part V

of chapter 394, Florida Statutes (2002).

We affirm.

Defendant-appellant Pearson pled guilty to a series of six sexual batteries which he committed in 1985. Prior to the

expiration of his sentences in 2003, the State petitioned to have him involuntarily committed under the Jimmy Ryce Act. In the commitment proceedings, defendant-appellant Pearson attempted to challenge the constitutionality of the statute. He

argued that the conditions at the Florida Civil Commitment Center, which is operated by the Department of Children and Families, are such that the confinement there is punitive incarceration, not civil confinement. He argued that confinement at that institution

violates the ex post facto, double jeopardy, and due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions. He proffered the

facts which he contended would support that conclusion. The trial court ruled that this claim was not cognizable in a civil commitment proceeding under the Act. The case proceeded to a

civil commitment trial at which the jury unanimously found the defendant to be a sexually violent predator. The court committed

the defendant to the Department and the defendant has appealed. We affirm the trial court's ruling which declined to entertain the constitutional challenge based on the conditions of

confinement.

The statute contains a specific method for bringing

such a challenge, but such a challenge cannot be brought during commitment proceedings. See

Download 03-1384 PEARSON V. STATE.pdf