DANIEL MEDBERRY, 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.
The court held that a trial court errs in adjudicating and sentencing a defendant for a greater degree of felony sexual battery than the jury's verdict supports.
[1] A jury's verdict finding a defendant guilty of a lesser included offense of sexual battery, when not instructed on first-degree felony sexual battery, must be pursuant to…
[2] A defendant is adjudicated and sentenced for offenses greater in degree than returned in the verdicts constitutes fundamental error, which may be considered on appeal eve…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with three counts of first-degree felony sexual battery but the jury found him guilty of the lesser included offense. The tr…
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 Grand Theft Of A Motor Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The defendant appeals from his convictions and sentences for three counts of first degree felony sexual battery and single counts of false imprisonment and grand theft of a motor vehicle. We find no merit to his first point on appeal but we agree that the trial court erred in adjudicating and sentencing him for three counts of first degree felony sexual battery.
Section 794.011, Florida Statutes (1993) sets out the different degrees of sexual battery:
(3) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person’s consent, and in the process thereof uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or uses actual physical force likely to cause serious personal injury commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who commits sexual 'battery upon a person 12 years of age or older without that person’s consent, under any of the following circumstances, commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084:
(a) When the victim is physically helpless to resist.
(b) When the offender coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use force or violence likely to cause serious personal injury on the victim, and the victim reasonably believes that the offender has the present ability to execute the threat.
(c) When the offender coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate against the victim, or any other person, and the victim reasonably believes that the offender has the ability to execute the threat in the future.
(d) When the offender, without the prior knowledge or consent of the victim, administers or has knowledge of someone else administering to the victim any narcotic, anesthetic, or other intoxicating substance which mentally or physically incapacitates the victim.
(e) When the victim is mentally defective and the offender has reason to believe this or has actual knowledge of this fact.
(f) When the victim is physically incapacitated.
(5) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person’s consent, and in the process thereof does not use physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) The offense described in subsection (5) is included in any sexual battery offense charged under subsection (3) or subsection (4).
The defendant was charged by information with three counts of sexual battery on a person 12 years of age or older without consent and with the use or .threatened use of a deadly weapon or use of actual physical force likely to cause serious bodily injury. Each of the three counts reference section 794.011(3). As set forth in section 794.011(3), this offense constitutes a life felony. The court instructed the jury on sexual battery with a weapon, sexual battery and battery and the jury returned a verdict finding the “Defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of Sexual Battery.” Was this verdict pursuant to subsection (4), a first degree felony, or subsection (5), a second degree felony? 1
The state sought instructions on sexual battery as charged in the information and what it referred to as “regular sexual bat tery.” The jury was instructed in accordance with subsections (3) and (5) but was not instructed in accordance with subsection (4). Thus, when the jury convicted the defendant of the lesser included offenses of sexual battery, it did so pursuant to section 794.011(5), which is a second degree felony.
The trial court erred in adjudicating the defendant guilty of three counts of first degree felony sexual battery. The convictions for three counts of sexual battéry and single counts of false imprisonment and grand theft of a motor vehicle are affirmed but the written' judgment is reversed for correction of the sexual battery counts which should be identified as felonies of the second degree. The sentences are vacated. Upon resentencing the court, which had entered a single sentencing order imposing concurrent terms of 27 years imprisonment on each count, should enter separate sentences on each count. See Biles v. State, 693 So. 2d 701(Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
AFFIRMED IN PART; JUDGMENT REVERSED FOR CORRECTION; SENTENCES VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . The state does not address this question in its answer brief but rather argues that the defendant failed to raise this matter below and that since July 1, 1996, such unpreserved error cannot be raised on direct appeal. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. Section 924.051 became effective on July 1, 1996. Ch. 96-248, §§ 4, 9, Laws of Florida. Subsection (3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken from a judgment or order of a trial court unless a prejudicial error is alleged and is properly preserved or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error. A judgment or sentence may be reversed on appeal only when an appellate court determines after a review of the complete record that prejudicial error occurred and was properly preserved in the trial court or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error. Absent fundamental error, a defendant sentenced after July 1, 1996, must preserve by timely and appropriate action in the trial court any error in his sentence. See Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), rev. denied, 698 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1997).
While the defendant was sentenced here on July 19, 1996, fundamental error is involved where a defendant is adjudicated and sentenced for offenses greater in degree than returned in the verdicts. This issue is properly considered on appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…abitualization). In view of our holding today, we must recede from several of our earlier opinions. As indicated, this court will no longer recognize fundamental error in the sentencing context, contrary to the statements made in Medberry v. State, 699 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), Saldana v. State, 698 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), Rangel v. State, 692 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), Ortiz v. State, 696 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) and Bisson v. State, 696 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Nor will this…
-
Bass v. State, 739 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…nt did not raise this issue below, this claim of error may be considered by this court on appeal as fundamental error because defendant was adjudicated guilty for an offense greater in degree than that returned in the verdict. See Medberry v. State, 699 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), receded from on other grounds, Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), rev. granted, 728 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1999). Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill is a third degree felony. See § 784.021…
-
Medberry v. State, 824 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…udgments and sentences entered in Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Case No. CR93-1697. This court upheld Med-berry’s judgments and sentences, except that his case was remanded for resentenc-ing on his three sexual battery convictions. Medberry v. State, 699 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). After he was re-sentenced, Medberry again appealed, but this court per curiam affirmed without opinion. Medberry v. State, 718 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Medberry continued to attack his judgments and sentences by filing…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Biles v. State, 693 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)