Opinion ID: 1829778
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: Accordingly, based on the other provisions of the statute and our opinion in Hale, we agree with the Third District's interpretation of the applicability of the Act and answer the certified question in the affirmative. Thus, we also agree with the Third District that Ward was subject to the Act based on his prior convictions for sexually violent offenses and his current confinement in state custody. Based on this conclusion, we lift the stay on Ward's commitment proceedings in the circuit court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents with an opinion, in which PARIENTE, J., concurs. ANSTEAD, J., dissenting. If there is one rule of statutory construction that this Court has honored in so many instances as to make citation unnecessary, it is the rule that we must utilize the plain wording of a statute to determine its meaning. The dissenting opinion [2] of Chief Judge Cope in the district court constitutes a flawless and textbook example of applying that rule here. In addition, an analysis of legislative history also supports Judge Cope's conclusion. For those reasons, and because I believe the majority opinion clearly violates this controlling rule of construction and ignores legislative history, I dissent.