MICHAEL ANDRE PEAVY, 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.
Michael Peavy appeals two convictions for sexual battery without a deadly weapon, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding lack of consent. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but remanded to correct a statutory citation error in the judgment.
The court affirmed the convictions on the sufficiency of evidence challenge, finding no merit to appellant's argument. However, the court found that the discrepancy between the crime adjudicated and the statutory reference in the judgment constitutes fundamental error that can be raised for the first time on appeal and remanded for correction.
[1] Sufficiency of evidence to prove lack of consent in a sexual battery case is reviewed for merit.
[2] A discrepancy between the statutory citation in a written judgment and the offense for which a defendant was convicted constitutes fundamental error that can be raised fo…
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 intelligence“The written judgment in this case adjudicates appellant guilty of the crime of sexual battery without a deadly weapon, but refers to section 794.011(3), Florida Statutes, which defines the crime of sexual battery with, a deadly weapon.”
Identifies the facial discrepancy in the judgment that constitutes fundamental error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeavy was convicted of two counts of sexual battery without a deadly weapon. The written judgment, however, incorrectly cited section 794.011(3), Flor…
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 Preservation Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
[*944] WOLF, Judge.
Appellant challenges his two convictions for sexual battery without a deadly weapon on grounds that the evidence presented by the state was insufficient to prove lack of consent. We find no merit to this challenge and affirm the convictions and sentences.
Appellant also notes for the first time on appeal an error in the written judgment adjudicating him guilty of these offenses. The written judgment in this case adjudicates appellant guilty of the crime of sexual battery without a deadly weapon, but refers to section 794.011(3), Florida Statutes, which defines the crime of sexual battery with, a deadly weapon. Appellant was sentenced after the effective date of section 924.051(3), Florida Statutes (1997) which states that “[a]n 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.” We remand to correct the asserted discrepancy in the judgment because the noted error is materially different than an alleged discrepancy between an oral pronouncement and a written judgment which would require preservation in the trial court before being addressed on appeal. See Davis v. State, 704 So. 2d 681, 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also Massey v. State, 698 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
The discrepancy in the written judgment in this case appears on the face of the judgment and seemingly adjudicates appellant guilty of offenses unsupported by the evidence presented at trial and of which the jury did not find him guilty.
We find that such a discrepancy constitutes fundamental error which can be raised for the. first time on appeal. On remand, the trial court should replace the reference to section 794.011(3), Florida Statutes (1995), in the judgment with the correct statutory reference to section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (1995).
BOOTH and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Flint v. State, 704 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Massey v. State, 698 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)