CARL KAROL SANDERSON, ETC., 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.
Sanderson appeals his conviction for kidnapping and three counts of sexual battery of an 11-year-old child, arguing the victim's age was not sufficiently corroborated. The court affirms, holding that Sanderson failed to preserve the sufficiency-of-evidence issue for appeal because he did not specify the ground in his motion for judgment of acquittal and never renewed it.
The conviction is affirmed. The issue of sufficiency of evidence regarding the victim's age was not preserved for appeal because the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's case did not specify the ground relied upon, and the motion was never renewed as required by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.380(b).
[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal must specify the grounds relied upon to preserve the issue for appeal.
[2] A motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state's case must be renewed at the close of all evidence to preserve the issue for appeal.
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 appellant argues that the conviction should be reversed because the victim's age exceeded eleven years when the offense occurred, and he relies upon State v. Carroll, 378 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Carroll is distinguishable because in this case the issue of sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appeal.”
Establishes that preservation of the sufficiency-of-evidence issue is required for appellate review, distinguishing the case from Carroll.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanderson was charged with three counts of sexual battery upon a child 11 years or younger. The child testified he was 11 years and 8 months old at th…
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 Kidnapping cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Sanderson appeals from a judgment convicting him of kidnapping and three counts of sexual battery. He was sentenced to four concurrent life sentences. We affirm the convictions.
Sanderson was indicted for three counts of sexual battery committed upon [name deleted] a person (11) years or younger.1 Sanderson sought to prove insanity as a defense. He admitted taking the child to an orange grove, hitting him, and forcing him to undress, but claimed he could not recall anything thereafter. The child testified Sanderson forced him into his car, drove him to the orange grove, beat him up and repeatedly sexually assaulted him. The child testified that he was eleven years and eight months old at the time of the offense. At the close of the state’s case, the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the child’s age was not corroborated by any testimony other than his own. Defense counsel did not renew the motion at the close of all the evidence, or after the jury returned its guilty verdict.
The appellant argues that the conviction should be reversed because the victim’s age exceeded eleven years when the offense occurred, and he relies upon State v. Carroll, 378 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Carroll is distinguishable because in this case the issue of sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appeal. The appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case did not specify the ground relied upon in this appeal, contrary to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.380(b), nor was it ever renewed.2 Carter v. State, 380 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 948 (Fla.1977); Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); Magueira v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
AFFIRMED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., and JA-MIESON, FRANCES ANN, Associate Judge, concur. . Section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes (1977), provides that a person 18 years or older who commits a sexual battery upon a person 11 years of age or younger commits a capital felony.
. Appellant could also have preserved his point for appeal by a motion for new trial, but failed to do so. Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla.1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Jones v. State, 449 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…e trust that it will continue to be the pattern in our district. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. DAUKSCH, J., and SCOTT, R.C., Associate Judge, concur. . § 790.01(2), Fla.Stat. (1981). . § 784.05(2), Fla.Stat. (1981). . Sanderson v. State, 390 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). . Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1973). .Wilson v. State, 294 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1974); Pait v. State, 112 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1959); Peterson v. State, 376 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 642 (Fla.…
-
Williams v. State, 516 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…presentation if it is to be considered preserved. See Fla.R.Crim.Pr. 3.380(b) (judgment of acquittal motion must fully set forth the ground upon which it is based). See also Santini v. State, 404 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Sanderson v. State, 390 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In Royal the Florida Supreme Court stated that its prior decisions defining robbery had been consistent since Colbey v. State, 46 Fla. 112, 35 So. 189 (1903). It claimed further support for its determination was to be found in…
-
Gibson v. State, 533 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…ower court ... Furthermore, in order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception or motion below. [Citations omitted]. Id. at 338. See also Sanderson v. State, 390 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The objection that the jury might believe that the witness might be afraid of the defendant did not present to the trial court the issue of defendant’s right of confrontation, and that issue was therefore not preserved for appe…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1973)
- G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Allen v. State, 380 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. Carroll, 378 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Magueira v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Quintana v. State, 352 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)