Court Opinion

ID: 4876211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-26 03:12:45.381111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:30.255102
License: Public Domain

MORRIS, J.,
Concurring.
A plain reading of section 943.04354(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), and the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885 (Fla.2003), leave us no choice but to reach the decision we have in this case.
This case profoundly illustrates the manifest injustice which can result when a statute has rigid criteria that prevents a trial judge from exercising reasonable discretion. Judge Stargel, the trial judge in this case, attempted to exercise such discretion in the application of this statute. The facts of this case cry out for the result he reached. Regrettably, the requirements of the law do not permit us to support his decision.
*635Is there a societal interest in prohibiting an eighteen-year-old boyfriend and fourteen-year-old girlfriend from having consensual sexual relations? The answer to that question is obvious; of course there is. Mr. Welch should be punished for this behavior, and he was. However, is it really the will of the people to label the eighteen-year-old in this situation a sex offender for life? Is Mr. Welch who we really think of when we contemplate the definition of what a sex offender is or should be? I doubt most people would include him in this category.