WILLIAM ALTON GODWIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
William Godwin was convicted of sexual battery on a child under 12, a capital felony, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year minimum before parole eligibility. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting challenges based on statutory vagueness, cruel and unusual punishment, and alleged sentencing procedure violations.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the sexual battery statute is not unconstitutionally vague, the 25-year minimum parole eligibility requirement does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment, and sexual battery is not an offense covered by the mandatory sentencing procedures of former chapter 801.
[1] A statute prohibiting sexual battery by an adult upon a child eleven years of age or younger is constitutional.
[2] Evidence consisting of a written confession and victim testimony is sufficient to support a conviction for sexual battery.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The evidence, which consisted of the appellant's written confession and the testimony of the victim, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.”
Establishes that the conviction was supported by adequate evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGodwin was convicted in a jury trial of sexual battery by an adult upon a child eleven years of age or younger. The evidence supporting conviction con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Validity Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYD, Justice.
The appellant was convicted in a jury trial of the crime of sexual battery by a person eighteen years of age or older upon a person eleven years of age or younger, a capital felony forbidden by section 794.-011(2), Florida Statutes (1975). The trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for twenty-five years. § 775.082(1), Fla.Stat. (1975). The appellant raised the question of the statute’s constitutional validity, which was inherently passed upon when the court rendered the judgment of conviction. We have jurisdiction of the appeal. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const. The evidence, which consisted of the appellant’s written confession and the testimony of the victim, was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Both items of evidence were properly admitted.
The appellant contends that the statute he was convicted of violating is unconstitutionally vague. This issue has been resolved against appellant’s contention. Harrison v. State, 360 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1978).
The appellant contends that the provision in section 775.082(1), Florida Statutes (1975), that a person convicted of a capital felony be required to serve no less than twenty-five years before becoming eligible for parole, constitutes cruel or unusual punishment. This issue too has been resolved against the position taken by the appellant. Banks v. State, 342 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1976).
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in imposing sentence without complying with the mandatory procedures provided for by former chapter 801, Florida Statutes (1975).1 We hold that there was no error because sexual battery is not an offense under former chapter 801. It is not among the crimes listed in section 801.041, Florida Statutes (1975), which provides the definition of an “offense under the provisions of this chapter.” See Beatty v. State, 332 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
The appellant’s other points on appeal have been considered and found to be without merit.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, OYER-TON, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . Chapter 801 was repealed by chapter 77-312, section 31, Laws of Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Howard Banks v. State, 342 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1976)
- Harrison v. State, 360 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1978)
- Beatty v. State, 332 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)