The Doctrine of Finality
A few days ago, we put up a post that revisited Ex Post Facto in light of the recent Supreme Court Decision in Ellingburg v. United States. The essence of Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion was that if it walks like a duck…, if it quacks like a duck…, it doesn’t matter if you want to call it a chicken… it’s a duck. In actual terms, Justice Thomas said that even if the legislature wants to call a law “civil”, “remedial” or something else, if its impacts are punitive, it’s punishment. Thomas took it a step further and essentially called out Smith v. Doe for applying a more stringent test than required (“This test has included up to five factors, most of which allow a legislature to avoid the Clauses through labeling or semantics” and “the modern framework… allows a legislature to manipulate when the [Ex Post Facto] protection will apply”). Even though the case had nothing to do with the registry, the opinion is certainly helpful.
So let’s add another important principle in criminal law to the argument, and that’s the Doctrine of Finality. Finality reflects the settled expectation that, once the criminal process has ended and the punishment set by the court has been carried out, the legal consequences of the conviction are complete. It requires that punishment be fixed, knowable, and final. The defendant, the court, and society are entitled to rely on that conclusion. When new, punitive burdens are later attached to the old conviction, they disrupt this settled understanding and undermine constitutional principles (in this case, due process and double jeopardy).
Post-sentence residency and proximity restrictions function, in practical effect, as additional penalties imposed outside the original sentence. Lawmakers say they are not punishment – that they are civil and remedial. But they severely constrain where a person can live, work, or even just “be”. Essentially banishment. It often forces displacement, homelessness, the inability to associate with others, or in some cases exclusion from entire communities.
Take, for example, Senate Bill 212 that we’re actively advocating against. Say you committed an offense 20 years ago which landed you on the registry. You’ve long ago completed your sentence. For two decades you’ve lived a law-abiding life, started a family, opened a business, obeyed the law, and all the other things that constitute “successful” reentry. Your day consisted of the ordinary things people do. You wake up, go to the gym, head off to work, come home to your family. For fun, you take out the boat to go fishing and occasionally take the family to a Miami Heat game. This has been your routine and by any reasonable account you’ve “successfully reentered”. All of a sudden, with no change in circumstance on your part, your gym is off limits because LA Fitness has a swimming pool. Your boat is useless to you because you can’t go near a waterway. The Heat’s arena is on Biscayne Bay. Need to attend a trade show? Well you can’t because guess what… the hotel has a pool. Same with your parent’s condo… can’t visit them anymore either. Family wants to attend your nephew’s wedding? Better do a google map first because if there’s a park, playground, school, pool, etc. within 200 feet of it, you won’t be celebrating with them.
But at least you’re grandfathered into your home, right? Better hope your landlord lets you stay there forever and you can afford it, because even though you’ve not been subject to a residency restriction before, if you change residences, you can no longer live in 80% of the state. Now good luck trying to find a place to live! You might, but it’s 300 miles away. What about your business? Your wife’s job? Your kids need to transfer schools… And even if you manage to keep your career and marriage intact through all this turmoil, what new rules and restrictions are going to be imposed next legislative session? See, it’s not far fetched that almost every year for the rest of your life the screws will tighten. In fact it’s nearly certain! The registration statute has been amended in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2024, and 2025. What’s to come next? What happened to the Doctrine of Finality?!?!?
When these kinds of restrictions are enacted long after sentencing, they alter the legal consequences of the conviction in ways neither contemplated by the sentencing court nor disclosed to the defendant at the time of plea or sentencing. This retroactive augmentation of punishment (quacks like a duck, right?) conflicts with the principle that criminal sentences are final. They erode the jurisdictional boundaries that the Doctrine of Finality is meant to enforce. By imposing these sweeping restrictions and bans through civil or regulatory labels, governments effectively reopen completed sentences to extend and add to punishment indefinitely, without any individualized findings or procedural safeguards. This blurring of “civil” regulation and criminal sanction threatens finality by allowing the state to re-litigate punishment long after the judicial process has ended.
If the state can continually add new, burdensome consequences to a conviction long deemed final, the Doctrine of Finality becomes illusory. If the rules and restrictions keep changing every year, the consequences of a criminal conviction are anything but fixed, knowable, and final.
FAC is asking advocacy groups and legal scholars around the country to start reconsidering some arguments that were previously foreclosed by Smith v. Doe. Between the Clements court considering whether residency restrictions can render someone tantamount to “in custody”, the Ellingburg decision, and now this loud quacking Senate Bill 212, its time for someone to call this thing a duck!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Didn’t they pass a bill last year that gives anyone in the state the right to hunt and fish? If it’s interpreted correctly that means they can not take away my right to go to a lake, river or the Gulf and go fishing. Has anyone considered this?
Cmon man we all know the laws contradict one another lol look who we got as legislators 😂
https://gitnux.org/sexual-assault-prosecution-statistics/#sources
all that for *28 out of 1000 arrests for sexual assaults that actually lead to a conviction
*CPS Research Publication 2024
Is anyone asking the Guvnah directly about this? He is a law school grad and former JAG atty who knows the basics of the law (allegedly) who should understand this concept and justify why he feels they can do what they do. Fighting the legislature is great, but so is asking Ron himself given his background for justification is something that needs to be done as he wants to continue his political career to higher office. Make him defend his actions when signing things into law that violate the basic tenants of the laws from the start of this country. If he cannot with good reason, then I don’t want him in higher office.
You mean Ron Book?
NO, the guvnah Ron D.
Ron Desantis
He won’t because he wants to be re-elected
No, he won’t answer directly about PFRs and their situation, but you can back him into answering on the concept of it which impacts PFRs which will corner him without saying it (but implies it). Once cornered, he cannot escape it as an atty who knows better.
142 (2) A person who has been convicted of a violation of s.
143 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), or s. 847.0145,
144 regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which
145 the victim was younger than 16 years of age at the time of the
146 offense, or who has been convicted of a similar offense in
147 another jurisdiction, regardless of whether adjudication has
148 been withheld, in which the victim was younger than 16 years of
149 age at the time of the offense, may not visit or otherwise be
150 within 200 feet of any school, child care facility, park, public
151 swimming pool, public bathing place, or playground.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but by the strict wording of this passage, a large portion of the PFR’s cannot drive over any bridge in Florida, They cannot drive through almost any town in Florida, nor can they navigate almost any city. That appearance the way this is written would make it impossible to go to a grocery store or even the Sheriffs office to register. I cannot drive into town to shop without passing a school within 200 feet of the road. I cannot travel from the Sheriffs office to my house without passing a Church that has a bible school on it’s property.
Bear with me for a second because I tend to be long winded however this part of the bill could not be construed in any way other than “being in custody” Since it is almost impossible to travel in this State without being near a lake, pond, or shoreline, and having to drive over bridges that cross, lakes, rivers, streams…. Habeas Corpus would have to be applied.
Allow me to correct you.
155 (4) This section does not apply to a person who:
156 (a) Has been removed from the requirement to register as a
157 sexual offender or sexual predator under s. 943.04354.
158 (b) Is actively traveling past a location described in
159 subsection (1) while in transit to another destination.
I read that passage after I typed the comment. The site did not allow me to edit my comment. However this could be a sticky area for someone that has to walk in order to get anywhere. Simply by being out of a vehicle they have more hazard of being snatched for violating it.
Also there is spot in there about it not applying if you are attending religious services.
I wouldn’t know because I don’t live there.
There goes my job because I maintain hotels with pools. If this “law” passes I’m suing the s*** out of Florida I dont care
I understand that and I would do the same but I am not from Florida.
The Doctrine of Finality would in fact turn the entire system up on its head. A 2002 conviction would only allow for registry restrictions that were in place at the time of conviction. Those that took a plea deal did so in full knowledge of the registry restrictions in place at the time of plea. Any added restrictions after the plea violate the Doctrine.
Also any out of State convictions would have extreme impact on Florida’s registry. If a person was convicted in 2002 and moved to Florida after release having completed their sentence, the registry sanctions would have to be frozen to what was in place in the year that they entered the State. Say they entered Florida in 2015, then the only registry restrictions that could affect them were the ones on the books in 2015.
The entire growing registry would not only be in violation of the Finality Doctrine but also in violation of due process. Since the offender was not adjudicated to follow new registry requirements all said requirements that are enacted after the conviction/completion of sentence must be construed to have violated due process.
Finally we get to the Ellingsburg decision and how it will also allow for suit to be filed as a violation of the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause. Equal protection under the law means that there cannot be two separate sets of rules for different portions of the population. Since they can say that PFR’s were adjudicated to be subject to the registry this clause may seem to have reduced protection for convicted PFR’s, However the part that seems to be constantly missed is that the only way a United States Citizen may lose their rights is through Adjudication whereas the Judge specifically orders the loss of said right.
My Judge specifically revoked my rights to own a firearm and my right to vote. My Judge did not revoke my right to due process, my right to speak, my right to access the Court….. I think it’s past time that the legislature be reminded that they cannot legislate our rights away and that unless a Judge specifically removes our rights at the time of sentencing any attempt at impinging upon them not only violates the Finality Doctrine, but the Constitution as well.