Freeze v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT TERRY FREEZE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D01-2021 Opinion filed December 12, 2003. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Jack Espinosa, Jr., Judge. James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Janet A. McDonald and Jennifer R. Haymes, Assistant Attorneys General, Tampa, for Appellee. KELLY, Judge. Terry Freeze appeals from the order finding him to be a sexually violent predator and committing him to the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services pursuant to section 394.917(2), Florida Statutes (1999), the "Jimmy Ryce Act." We affirm the commitment order based on Westerheide v. State, 831 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2002). However, because Freeze argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the State was required to prove that he has serious difficulty in controlling his behavior, we certify the same question certified as one of great public importance in Lee v. State, 854 So. 2d 709, 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003): MAY AN INDIVIDUAL BE COMMITTED UNDER THE JIMMY RYCE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT THE STATE MUST PROVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HAS SERIOUS DIFFICULTY IN CONTROLLING HIS OR HER DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR? Affirmed; question certified. NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ., Concur. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.