ANTHONY CLARK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sexual Contact Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, C.J.
On Clark’s motion, we grant rehearing, withdraw our original opinion, and substitute the following:
Clark appeals after the trial court denied his motion to correct his sentence. The basis of his motion was that the court incorrectly scored victim injury points for sexual contact when the only contact involved his touching of the victim’s buttocks. In Borjas v. State, 790 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), this court held that fondling a victim’s buttocks was not “sexual contact” within the meaning of section 921.001(7)(b)(2). Thus, under Borjas, we must reverse. As we did in Borjas, we also certify direct conflict with Seagrave v. State, 768 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), in which the first district held that sexual contact included fondling the buttocks.1
REVERSED and REMANDED.
STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur. . Seagrave was affirmed by the supreme court. Seagrave v. State, 802 So. 2d 281, (Fla. July 12, 2001). However, the supreme court's opinion dealt solely with the broader issue concerning whether "sexual contact” is limited to sexual union in order to allow the assessment of victim injury points. It expressly declined to address whether "sexual contact” includes the fondling of a victim’s buttocks. For this reason, Borjas remains in direct conflict with the first district’s opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knarich v. State, 866 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…points to be scored for “sexual contact that does not include sexual penetration,” but the statute does not define sexual contact. To support his argument, Knarich relies upon Borjas v. State, 790 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), and Clark v. State, 808 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), in which the Fourth District held that fondling a person’s buttocks does not constitute sexual contact for purposes of scoring victim injury points. In both cases the Fourth District certified conflict with Seagrave v. State, 76…
-
Cuneo v. Conseco Servs., LLC, 899 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…2d 1097 (Fla.1987). “The mere expense and inconvenience of litigation does not constitute harm sufficient to permit certiorari review, even if the order departs from the essential requirements of the law.” Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Sinclair, 808 So. 2d 231, 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The Cuneos cite Hallmark Manufacturing, Inc. v. Lujack Construction Company, Inc., 372 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), for their position that certiorari review is available here. However, we can find no other case in Flori…
-
Mariner Health Care v. Polly Y. Griffith, 898 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…e injury for which certiorari review is available. See, e.g., Zabawa v. Penna, 868 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. v. Lane, 855 So. 2d 1172, 1172-1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Sinclair, 808 So. 2d 231, 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), rev. denied, 823 So. 2d 125 (Fla.2002). In Smithers v. Smithers, 743 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the court declined to grant certiorari review of an order denying bifurcation. Although agreeing the bifurcation would ser…
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
- Seagrave v. State, 802 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2001)
- Seagrave v. State, 768 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Borjas v. State, 790 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)