CLARENCE MCFADDEN, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1982-12-08
No. 82-275
DOWNEY, BERANEK and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
423 So. 2d 456 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1982)

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.

Synopsis

Clarence McFadden appeals his convictions for kidnapping, two counts of sexual battery, and robbery, challenging various jury instructions, sentencing decisions, and the trial court's retention of jurisdiction. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no error in the jury instructions, the sentencing structure, or the trial court's retention of jurisdiction over the first third of the sentence.


Holding

The court held that: (1) the failure to instruct on circumstantial evidence was not error; (2) the instruction on intent for robbery was sufficient; (3) the definition of sexual battery was adequate; (4) sexual batteries were properly charged and sentenced separately from kidnapping; (5) the 300-year sentence was lawful; and (6) the trial court properly retained jurisdiction over the first third of the sentence.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court's failure to instruct on circumstantial evidence is not error.

[2] An instruction on intent for robbery is sufficient if it meets the requirements of established case law.

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“the court's failure to instruct on circumstantial evidence was not error”

Establishes that the omission of a circumstantial evidence instruction did not constitute reversible error under controlling precedent.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Defendant McFadden was convicted of kidnapping, two counts of sexual battery, and robbery. He was sentenced to 100 years on the kidnapping charge, 100…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence on charges of kidnapping, two counts of sexual battery and robbery. Defendant was sentenced to 100 years on the kidnapping charge and 100 years on each of both sexual battery counts. He was sentenced to 50 years on the robbery count. The three 100 year sentences are consecutive and the 50 year sentence is concurrent. Defendant raises numerous arguments. Initially, we conclude that the court’s failure to instruct on circumstantial evidence was not error. See Perdue v. State, 421 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) [7 FLW 2425]. We find the instruction on intent given by the trial court concerning the robbery charge to be sufficient pursuant to the requirements of Bell v. State, 394 So. 2d 979 (Fla.1981). We also consider the court’s charge adequate as to the definition of sexual battery. The charged sexual batteries were not lesser included offenses within the kidnapping charge and defendant was appropriately sentenced separately on these charges. See Faison v. State, (Fla.1982) [7 FLW 477], Defendant also raises various attacks on the 300 year sentence and the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over the first third thereof. We find no error and conclude these arguments are disposed of by reference to Faison v. State, supra, and Borden v. State, 402 So. 2d 1176 (Fla.1981).

Defendant also asserts error in that the trial court failed to state the justification for the retention of jurisdiction over the first third of his sentence. This argument was not presented to the trial court and we thus decline to consider it without prejudice to defendant’s right to apply to the trial court for relief pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Sawyer v. State, 401 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, BERANEK and WALDEN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw