context: . We have approved constitutional decisions of the district courts based on different constitutional grounds.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 831 So.2d 93, 110-11
citation_a.parenthetical: concluding that the defendant's equal protection challenge to determinations made under the sexual offender involuntary commitment statute was properly a due process claim
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Saiez, 489 So.2d 1125, 1126, 1129 (Fla.1986) (agreeing that the subject statute was unconstitutional, but rejecting the district court's reasoning that the statute was overbroad and vague and holding instead that statute violated due process); see also Westerheide v. State, 831 So.2d 93, 110-11 (Fla.2002) (concluding that the defendant’s equal protection challenge to determinations made under the sexual offender involuntary commitment statute was properly a due process claim).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 489 So.2d 1125, 1126, 1129
citation_b.parenthetical: agreeing that the subject statute was unconstitutional, but rejecting the district court's reasoning that the statute was overbroad and vague and holding instead that statute violated due process
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Saiez, 489 So.2d 1125, 1126, 1129 (Fla.1986) (agreeing that the subject statute was unconstitutional, but rejecting the district court's reasoning that the statute was overbroad and vague and holding instead that statute violated due process); see also Westerheide v. State, 831 So.2d 93, 110-11 (Fla.2002) (concluding that the defendant’s equal protection challenge to determinations made under the sexual offender involuntary commitment statute was properly a due process claim).