JACKIE M. JANTZEN, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Certiorari granted and conviction quashed because the state failed to prove the essential element that the petitioner remained in the building for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
A conviction for remaining in a building for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation must be reversed when the state presents no evidence of that essential purpose.
[1] A conviction for remaining in a building for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation cannot stand when the state presents no evidence of the essential eleme…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackie M. Jantzen was convicted in county court of remaining in a health spa as a masseuse for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation u…
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 Failure Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner Jackie M. Jantzen seeks certiorari review of an order of the circuit court affirming, in its appellate capacity, a county court conviction for remaining in a building or structure for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation [§ 796.07(3)(c), Fla.Stat. (1981)]. We have jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Art. Y, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const. A petition for a writ of certiorari plainly lies in this case as the two essential requirements for certiorari relief are present herein.
First, the petitioner has no adequate remedy by appeal from the order under review because no appeal of any kind lies from said order.
Second, the said order constitutes a departure from essential requirements of law. There is utterly no evidence in this record — and the state makes no contention to the contrary — which remotely establishes an essential element of the crime charged, namely, that the petitioner Jantzen, while remaining in a certain health spa as a masseuse, did so, “for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.” § 796.07(3)(c), Fla.Stat. (1981).
This admitted, complete failure of proof as to the above essential element of the crime charged, required the circuit court to reverse the petitioner’s conviction on appeal and its failure to do so constitutes a departure from essential requirements of law. Cohen v. State, 99 So. 2d 563, 565 (Fla.1957); Newman v. State, 174 So. 2d 479, 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
The order under review is quashed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions to reverse the subject county court conviction and direct the discharge of the petitioner from the cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Millar v. State, 655 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…e order placing Millar in the Renaissance Program in Macclenny. A court departs from the essential requirements of law when there is no evidence in the record to support the order. Blocker’s v. Yarborough, 277 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1973); Jantzen v. State, 422 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Lee v. State, 374 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Whispering Pines Lake Owners Ass’n v. Demosthenis, 361 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). In the present case, the uncontradict-ed expert testimony originally recommended that Mill…
Authorities Cited
- Newman v. State, 174 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Selinsky v. Selinsky, 99 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1957)
- Cohen v. State, 99 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1957)