Neil D. Chavez v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJune 22, 2020
Docket1D19-0128
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D19-128
_____________________________
NEIL D. CHAVEZ,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
James C. Hankinson, Judge.
June 22, 2020
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Neil D. Chavez, appeals an Order Denying
Defendant’s Petition for Removal of the Requirement to Register
as a Sexual Offender. Appellant was adjudicated guilty and
sentenced for the offenses of traveling to meet a minor in violation
of section 847.0135(4)(b), Florida Statutes, and the unlawful use of
a computer service in violation of section 847.0135(3)(b), Florida
Statutes. The trial court properly denied Appellant’s petition for
the removal of the requirement to register as a sexual offender
because neither of Appellant’s offenses are included within section
943.04354, Florida Statutes (2018), which provides that as long as
certain requirements are satisfied, a court may consider removing
the registration requirement for defendants who are convicted of
the enumerated crimes of lewd or lascivious offenses committed
upon or in the presence of persons less than sixteen years of age,
sexual performance of a child, and engaging in certain prohibited
computer transmissions. Although Appellant attempts to liken his
offenses to those provided for in the statute, we are not at liberty
to add words to statutes that were not placed there by the
Legislature. See Seagrave v. State, 802 So. 2d 281, 287 (Fla. 2001);
see also English v. State, 191 So. 3d 448, 450 (Fla. 2016) (noting
that when a statute’s language is clear, a court need not look
behind the statute’s plain language); Courson v. State, 24 So. 3d
1249, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (noting that courts are without the
power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way that would
extend, modify, or limit its express terms or its reasonable and
obvious implications).
Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Chuck Collins of Collins Law Firm, Monticello, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Damaris E. Reynolds,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2