STEPHEN NEIL JENKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Kidnapping With A Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
We affirm the defendant’s convictions except as to the conviction of kidnapping with a weapon (§ 787.01, Fla.Stat.), which conviction is reversed because the confinement and movement involved in facts and circumstances occurring during the commission of the acts for which the defendant was convicted of six counts of sexual battery were, in our opinion, merely incidental to the sexual batteries, and therefore, do not meet the criteria for a kidnapping conviction as set forth in Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1983).
We have determined that the elimination of the points on the guidelines scoresheet for the kidnapping charge does not affect the recommended guidelines sentence in this case and therefore we do not vacate the sentence nor remand for resentencing.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keller v. State, 586 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…89 (Fla.1983), this court relied on Faison and reversed a conviction for false imprisonment because the victim’s confinement during an attempted sexual battery was incidental to the crime.8 The same standard was employed in Jenkins v. [*1262] State, 549 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), in which a kidnapping conviction was reversed because the confinement and movement of the victim was incidental to the sexual batteries. And similarly in Kirtsey v. State, 511 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), a kidnapping convict…
-
Cummo v. State, 581 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…e knew Cummo had something in his mouth and based on his experience, he suspected it might be cocaine. He further testified that the object in Cummo’s mouth could have been a lifesaver or a mint. We find as the Fifth District did in Ricks v. State, 549 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), that “[t]his case is analogous to those invalidating a seizure where the officer upon stopping the defendant reached inside the defendant’s pocket to seize an item which the officer did not believe was a weapon.” (Citations omit…
-
State v. Caicedo, 622 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…fficer observed the defendant place the just-acquired object immediately into his mouth, and testified that in his experience, the mouth is commonly used to carry rock cocaine. See Steele v. State, 561 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Ricks v. State, 549 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Adams v. State, 523 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). An observation as to a known mode of transportation of drugs is a factor properly considered in a probable cause determination. See P.L.R. v. State, 455 So. 2d 363 (Fla.1984) (…
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
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983)