JERRID CONYERS, 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.
Jerrid Conyers was charged with committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a 14-year-old child in violation of Florida Statute § 800.04(2). He challenged the statute's constitutionality on privacy grounds, arguing that under In re T.W., the victim had a right to privacy extending to consensual sexual intercourse. The court affirmed the statute's constitutionality, holding that Florida has a compelling interest in protecting minors from sexual activity regardless of any privacy rights.
The statute is constitutional. Although minors have been granted certain privacy rights, those rights do not vitiate the legislature's authority to protect minors from sexual conduct by others. Florida has a compelling interest in protecting children from sexual activity and exploitation before their minds and bodies have matured sufficiently to make such activity safe and healthy.
[1] A statute prohibiting lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under sixteen is constitutional, as the legislature has a compelling interest in protecting minors from sexual…
[2] The right to privacy granted to minors does not extend to the right to engage in consensual sexual intercourse with an adult.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The rights of privacy that have been granted to minors do not vitiate the legislature's efforts and authority to protect minors from conduct of others- Florida has an obligation and a compelling interest in protecting children from 'sexual activity and exploitation before their minds and bodies have sufficiently matured to make it appropriate, safe and healthy for them.'”
The court's rationale for upholding the statute's constitutionality, establishing that minors' privacy rights do not override the state's compelling interest in protecting them from sexual exploitation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConyers, age twenty, had consensual sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old victim. The victim testified under oath that she was not a virgin and had pr…
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.
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Jerrid Conyers was charged with the crime of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of sixteen, a violation of section 800.04(2), Florida Statutes (1991). Conyers filed a motion to dismiss arguing the aforementioned statute was unconstitutional. The trial court denied Co-nyers’s motion and upheld the constitutionality of section 800.04(2). Thereafter, Conyers entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge and reserved the right to appeal the ruling on his motion to dismiss. He was adjudicated guilty and was sentenced to two years of community control to begin upon the final ruling in his appeal. We affirm.
The fourteen-year-old victim herein testified under oath that she had consensual intercourse with the appellant, age twenty. She declared she was not a virgin at the time she had sexual intercourse with Conyers and alleged she had engaged in sexual activity with another male when she was thirteen years old. These sworn statements were submitted to the trial court in support of Conyers’s motion to dismiss. At the hearing on his motion to dismiss, Conyers’s counsel argued that under the reasoning of In re T.W., 551 So. 2d 1186 (Fla.1989), the victim had a right to privacy and this right would extend to the right to have consensual sexual intercourse.
We previously reviewed this issue in Schofield v. State, 621 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and also certified this issue in the context of section 794.05, Florida Statutes (1991), which prohibits carnal intercourse with a person under eighteen years, in State v. B.B., 637 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA May 6, 1994). In both cases, we cited to the Fifth District’s well-reasoned opinion in Jones v. State, 619 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), which now has been approved by our supreme court in Jones v. State, 640 So. 2d 1084 (Fla.1994). In so affirming the constitutionality of section 800.04, the court observed “[t]he rights of privacy that have been granted to minors do not vitiate the legislature’s efforts and authority to protect minors from conduct of others-Florida has an obligation and a compelling interest in protecting children from ‘sexual activity and exploitation before their minds and bodies have sufficiently matured to make it appropriate, safe and healthy for them.’ ” Jones, 640 So. 2d at 1087.
Affirmed.
PATTERSON and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re T.W., 551 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1989)
- Quarry Jones v. State, 640 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1994)
- Quarry Jones v. State, 619 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- State v. B.B., 637 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Schofield v. State, 621 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)