to designate an offender. He argued in the alternative that mandatory application of the Act to Robinson would be unconstitutional because both parties stipulated that no sex was involved in this case. The substantive due process/conclusive presumption argument now advanced to this Court simply was not preserved at the hearing. In fact, Robinson did not raise the argument that the Act unconstitutionally created a conclusive presumption until approximately nine months after filing his notice of appeal with the Fourth District, when he filed before the circuit court a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. This was clearly improper as a sexual predator designation is not a sentence. See Angell v. State, 712 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Although the majority finds the Act
holding that court will not take judicial notice of foreign law that is neither pleaded nor proven holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment holding that in rem civil forfeitures under 21 usc  881a7 are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that neither the ada nor the rehabilitation act applies to prison employment