Espindola v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Florida Act was distinguishable from the statutes in Smith and Connecticut and, therefore, violated procedural due process and certifying conflict with Milks
• holding that the absence of a provision allowing for a hearing to determine whether a defendant presents a danger to the public sufficient to require registration and public notification violates procedural due process
• holding Florida Sexual Predator's Act, section 775.21, Florida Statutes (2000), to be unconstitutional as violating procedural due process
• \[The] total failure to provide for a judicial hearing on the risk of the defendant's committing future offenses makes it violative of procedural due process and therefore unconstitutional.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).