VICTOR WONYETYE, 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.
Victor Wonyetye was convicted in two separate jury trials of burglary, indecent exposure, trespass, and possession of burglary tools. On appeal, he challenged his convictions on ten grounds, all of which the court rejected, but the court reversed the sentencing as to two counts that should have been concurrent rather than consecutive.
The court affirmed all convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court's decision to sever by residence rather than by individual count, and sufficient evidence for the indecent exposure conviction. However, the court reversed and remanded the sentence as to attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools related to the Rush home (counts 14 and 15), which should have been concurrent rather than consecutive as they were part of the same episode.
[1] A trial court's decision on a motion to sever counts for trial is within its sound discretion and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.
[2] Offenses may be joined for trial if they are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more connected acts or transactions.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Two or more related offenses may be joined if they are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more connected acts or transactions.”
Establishes the legal standard for when multiple offenses may be tried together, supporting the trial court's decision to sever by residence rather than grant complete severance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with nineteen counts of trespass, burglary, indecent exposure, attempted burglary, and possession of burglary tools occurring at…
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 Lewdness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his convictions in two separate jury trials for burglary, indecent exposure, trespass, and possession of burglary tools. He raises ten points on appeal. We find no reversible error in any of the points challenging his conviction. However, we reverse in part as to his sentence.
Appellant was charged with nineteen counts consisting of trespass, burglary, exposure of sexual organs, attempted burglary, and possession of burglary tools in connection with his alleged activities. The events giving rise to the charges took place at two separate residences, the Rush residence and the Parker residence. As to each residence, appellant’s activities covered a several day period. He filed a motion to sever all counts for trial.
The trial court granted the motion to the extent that it ordered separate trials for the counts relating to the Parker residence and the counts relating to the Rush residence.
Appellant argues that it was error for the trial court to deny his motion to try each count separately. The granting of a severance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent abuse. State v. Vazquez, 419 So. 2d 1088, 1090 (Fla.1982).
Two or more related offenses may be joined if they are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more connected acts or transactions. Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784, 789 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2377, 124 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993).
In the instant case each of the offenses tried together shared a temporal and geographical proximity, and the nature of the crimes and the activities of the appellant in each were very similar. Under the facts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. We also disagree with appellant’s contention that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal. As to his conviction for exposure of sexual organs under section 800.03, Florida Statutes, he argues that there was no evidence that his exposure of himself was in any way in a “vulgar or indecent manner,” because there was no evidence that he intended anyone to see him.
However, the facts adduced show that appellant, while on the private premises of another, masturbated as he looked into bedroom windows where young girls were sleeping. In Duvallon v. State, 404 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the First District cited Chesebrough, v. State, 255 So. 2d 675, 677, 678 (Fla.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 976, 92 S.Ct. 2427, 32 L.Ed.2d 676 (1972), and explained that a “vulgar or indecent manner” under section 800.03 necessarily related to a lascivious exhibition of private parts, which exhibition must be lewd, that is, involving an unlawful indulgence in lust, eager for sexual indulgence. In Boles v. State, 158 Fla. 220, 221, 27 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla.1946), the court stated, “ ‘Lewd’, ‘lascivious’ and ‘indecent’ are synonymous and connote wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual design on the part of the perpetrator.” The facts of this case fit the Boles definition.
The remaining points as to the conviction also do not present reversible error. As to the sentence, we affirm the habitualized sentence and the consecutive misdemeanor convictions. However, as to the attempted burglary of the Rush home and the possession of burglary tools also as to the Rush home (counts 14 and 15), we reverse and remand for the trial court to make these sentences concurrent rather than consecutive as they occurred as part of the same episode. See Daniels v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1992).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for correction of sentence.
WARNER, POLEN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dupree v. State, 705 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…nerally a matter within the trial court’s discretion and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse. See Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784, 790 (Fla.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 2377, 124 L.Ed.2d 282 (1993); Wonyetye v. State, 648 So. 2d 797, 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.150(a) provides: Two or more offenses that are triable in the same court may be charged in the same indictment or information in a separate count for each offense, when the offenses ..…
-
Bateson v. State, 761 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…sdemeanors, or both, are based on the same act or transaction or on 2 or more connected acts or transactions. Denial of a motion for severance is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Crossley v. State, 596 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1992); Wonyetye v. State, 648 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In Garcia v. State, 568 So. 2d 896 (Fla.1990), the supreme court explained that “the ‘connected acts or transactions’ requirement of rule 3.150 means that the acts joined for trial must be considered ‘in an episodic sense.’ ” I…
-
Smith v. State, 776 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…e evidence, we cannot conclude that a denial of the motion for severance constituted an abuse of discretion in this case. See Davis v. State, 670 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Solomon v. State, 596 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Wonyetye v. State, 648 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). For the foregoing reasons, we therefore affirm the conviction and sentence entered in this case. Affirmed. . Indeed, the state candidly concedes that if Smith had been apprehended while in possession of both firearms at the s…
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
- Konstantinos X. Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1992)
- Berlie Daniels, Jr. v. State, 595 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1992)
- Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Vazquez, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1982)
- Chesebrough v. Florida, 406 U.S. 976 (U.S. 1972)
- Boles v. State, 158 Fla. 220 (Fla. 1946)
- Bailey v. North Carolina, 406 U.S. 976 (U.S. 1972)
- Duvallon v. State, 404 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)