provides, in pertinent part, (4) Sexual predator criteria.— ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ # (c) ... [U]pon conviction, an offender shall be designated as a “sexual predator” ... if: 1. The felony meets the criteria of former § 775.22(2) and 775.23(2), specifically, the felony is: a. A capital, life, or first-degree felony violation of s. 787.01 or s. 787.02, where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim’s parent, or of chapter 794 or s. 847.0145, or a violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction.... § 775.21(4)(c)1, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998)(em-phasis supplied). There is no ambiguity in this particular section; if the defendant meets the substantive criteria for the designation of a sexual predator, the court must designate him as so. See State v. Dugan, 685 So.2d 1210, 1212 (Fla.1996)(<HOLDING>). Section 775.21(4)(c)1 expressly required the
holding that legislative consent to suit must be by clear and unambiguous language in either a statute or by other express legislative permission holding if the language of a deed or other written instrument is clear and unambiguous the intention of the parties is gathered from the instrument it is what the grant or said and not what he intended to say holding that if words of statute are unambiguous there is no room for judicial construction holding that if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous a court must derive legislative intent from the words used without involving rules of construction or speculating as to what the legislature intended holding that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous no need exists for the court to examine the legislative histo ry and the court must give effect to the plain meaning of the statute