JAMES RANDOLF PAYNE, PETITIONER,
v.
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.
The court held that urinating in a public parking lot, without more, does not constitute a lascivious exposure of a sexual organ required for a violation of the indecent exposure statute.
Petitioner was arrested for urinating in a public parking lot and charged with violating the indecent exposure statute. He admitted the act but argued…
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 Indecent Exposure cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an appellate decision of the DeSoto County Circuit Court which affirmed his conviction for violation of section 800.03, Florida Statutes (1983), the indecent exposure statute. We grant the petition.
Petitioner was charged with violating section 800.03, a first-degree misdemeanor, •following his arrest for urinating on a public parking lot. Petitioner pled not guilty and filed a sworn motion to dismiss pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). In the motion, petitioner admitted committing the act charged. He asserted that the undisputed facts failed to establish that he exposed his sexual organ in a vulgar or indecent manner. The state did not file a traverse. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss was denied. He pled nolo con-tendere and reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss to the circuit court. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the county court’s decision.
This case is controlled by our recent decision in Goodmakers v. State, 450 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In Goodmakers, we held that in order for there to be a violation of section 800.03 there must be a lascivious exposure of a sexual organ. This means that “the perpetrator’s exposition or exhibition involves ‘an unlawful indulgence in lust, eager for sexual indulgence.’ Cheesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675, 677 (Fla.1971).” Based upon the undisputed facts in the instant case, petitioner’s conduct as a matter of law did not constitute a violation of section 800.03. As noted in Goodmak-ers, apparently petitioner could have been charged with disorderly conduct pursuant to section 877.03, Florida Statutes (1981). 450 So. 2d at 891, n. 1.
The decision of the circuit court is QUASHED.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Egal v. State, 469 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…een referred to as generally and usually involving “an unlawful indulgence in lust, eager for sexual indulgence.” Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675, 678 (Fla.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 2427, 32 L.Ed.2d 676 (1972); Payne v. State, 463 So. 2d 271 (Fla.2d DCA 1984). That term has also been said to connote “wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual design on the part of the perpetrator.” Chesebrough, 255 So. 2d at 677, quoting from Boles v. State, 158 Fla. 220, 27 So. 2d 293, 294 (1946…
-
Durant v. State, 647 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…his back steps one evening, knowing that neighbor girls [*164] were outside and would see him. The trial court also revoked Durant’s probation. The act of urinating in public does not by itself constitute a lewd or lascivious act. Payne v. State, 463 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Likewise, exposure of one’s private parts does not qualify unless the circumstances show a lewd or lascivious intent. Egal v. State, 469 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA) (Frank, J., dissenting), review denied, 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1985).…
-
M.L.C. v. State, 875 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ersing the defendant’s conviction for a lewd or lascivious act when the circumstances did not demonstrate a “wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual design on the part of the perpetrator” (quoting Egal, 469 So. 2d at 197)); Payne v. State, 463 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (holding, as a matter of law, that the defendant’s conduct was not lewd, lascivious, vulgar, or indecent). The evidence was sufficient, however, for the court to conclude that M.L.C. committed the lesser-included offense of m…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1971)
- Goodmakers v. State, 450 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)