ROBERT HOOD DISINGER, 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.
Robert Disinger was convicted of three counts of sexual battery on a child under 12 and one count of indecent assault on a child under 16. The appellate court affirmed his convictions but vacated and remanded the indecent assault sentence due to sentencing guideline errors.
The trial court did not err in refusing to inform the jury of penalties for sexual battery charges because sexual battery is not a capital offense where the jury determines sentencing. However, the trial court erred in sentencing on the indecent assault charge because sentencing guidelines apply to that offense and a scoresheet should have been prepared, and the State was required to prove the degree of disputed prior out-of-state convictions.
[1] A judge shall not instruct the jury on the sentence which may be imposed for the offense for which the accused is on trial, except in capital cases.
[2] A jury is not required to be advised of possible penalties when the jury plays no role in sentencing.
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“... it seems apparent that the purpose of the rule is to require a jury instruction when the jury is faced with the choice of either recommending the death penalty or life imprisonment. When the jury is not faced with this choice and plays no role in sentencing, however, it is no longer necessary that the jury be advised of the possible penalties.”
Establishes that jury instructions on sentencing are only required in capital cases where the jury determines sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury found Disinger guilty of three counts of sexual battery on a person less than 12 years of age by a person 18 years or older, and one count of i…
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 Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
A jury found defendant guilty as charged of three counts of sexual battery on a person less than 12 years of age, by a person 18 years of age or older, in violation of section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes (1985) and one count of indecent assault on a child under 16, in violation of section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes (1985). We affirm his convictions.
As one ground for reversal, appellant contends that the court should have permitted his attorney to inform the jury of the penalty for conviction of the sexual battery charges, and that the refusal to do so was error. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(a) provides: The presiding judge shall charge the jury only upon the law of the case at the conclusion of argument of counsel. Except in capital cases, the judge shall not instruct the jury on the sentence which may be imposed for the offense for which the accused is on trial.
We agree with the interpretation given this rule by the First District in Coleman v. State, 484 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) when it said that
... it seems apparent that the purpose of the rule is to require a jury instruction when the jury is faced with the choice of either recommending the death penalty or life imprisonment. When the jury is not faced with this choice and plays no role in sentencing, however, it is no longer necessary that the jury be advised of the possible penalties. Since sexual battery is not a capital offense in which the death penalty can be given, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that it was not required to inform the jury of the possible sentence to be imposed upon appellant for the crime of sexual battery.
Id. at 628. See also Dailey v. State, 501 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Davis v. State, 495 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Hickox v. State, 492 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
We do agree, however, with appellant’s contentions that the trial court erred in sentencing him on the indecent assault charge without preparing a guidelines scoresheet and without requiring the State to prove the degree of certain prior out-of-state convictions which appellant disputed.
The guidelines do not apply to the sexual battery charges here because they are still classified as capital offenses, although the death penalty no longer applies. See Rusaw v. State, 451 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1984); Carter v. State, 483 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). However, the guidelines do apply to the indecent assault charge, and a scoresheet should have been used. Although the State argues that even if the sentence on the indecent assault charge is incorrect, it will not affect appellant in light of the mandatory 25 years’ incarceration on the other charges, nevertheless, the defendant is entitled to have the record set straight. See Coleman v. State, 483 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). With respect to the out-of-state convictions, the State must corroborate the degree of convictions which were disputed by appellant. Robbins v. State, 482 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
The convictions are affirmed, as are the sentences on the sexual battery charges. The sentence on the indecent assault charge is vacated and the cause is remanded for resentencing on that charge.
AFFIRMED; One sentence VACATED and REMANDED.
SHARP, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Firkey v. State, 557 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…with sound, should escape prosecution because he had not, as yet, had time to exhibit his vile handiwork. Finally, the state concedes that the defendant is entitled to a guidelines score-sheet for his non-capital convictions. See Disinger v. State, 526 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). We, therefore, remand for resentencing. We find no other reversible error. AFFIRMED EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE DIRECTED. ÁNSTEAD and GARRETT, JJ., concur.…
-
Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…) (holding sexual battery on a child under twelve years of age is a capital felony, which is not subject to guidelines sentence); see also § 921.001(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987) (excluding capital felonies from guidelines sentencing); Disinger v. State, 526 So. 2d 213, 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Dailey v. State, 501 So. 2d 15, 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Davis v. State, 493 So. 2d 82, 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Although the stated rationale for including the questions and answers on the verdict form makes no sense, value…
-
Poole v. State, 777 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…. See Parker v. State, 767 So. 2d 532, 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Nevertheless, Poole correctly insists that he is entitled to an accurate 1994 scoresheet and we remand for that purpose although it will not affect his sentence. See Disinger v. State, 526 So. 2d 213, 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); see also Davis v. State, 529 So. 2d 1251, 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (the defendant is entitled to have the record set straight even if there is little possibility that the total time spent in jail will be affected). The sen…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rusaw v. State, 451 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1984)
- Vandeneynden v. State, 478 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Coleman v. State, 484 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Carter v. State, 483 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Coleman v. State, 483 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Alexander v. Adams, 501 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Robbins v. State, 482 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Dailey v. State, 501 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Davis v. State, 495 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Burt Hickox v. State, 492 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)