CARL LEWIS, 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.
Carl Lewis appeals his sentence for sexual misconduct by a county detention facility employee, challenging the assessment of 80 victim injury points under Florida's criminal punishment code. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the statute's clear language does not exempt such points for county/municipal employee violations, though the court suggested the legislature may wish to address the apparent inconsistency with the parallel state employee statute.
Victim injury points may be assessed for violations of section 951.221(1) because the clear language of section 921.0021(7) does not exempt such points for county or municipal detention facility employees, even though an exemption exists for the parallel state employee statute.
[1] Statutory construction is reviewed de novo.
[2] Victim injury points may be assessed for sexual misconduct by a county or municipal detention facility employee under section 951.221(1), Florida Statutes, even if a simi…
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“a basic principle of statutory construction" prevents courts from "add[ing] words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature.”
Establishes that the court cannot read exemptions into the statute that the legislature did not expressly include.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis was convicted by jury of violating section 951.221(1), Florida Statutes, which prohibits sexual misconduct by a county or municipal detention fa…
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 Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lewis appeals the sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of a violation of section 951.221(1), Florida Statutes (2002), sexual misconduct by a county or municipal detention facility employee. Specifically, Lewis contests the 80 points assessed for victim injury on his criminal punishment code scoresheet. Lewis argues victim injury points are inappropriate because section 921.0021(7)(a) prohibits such points from being assessed for violations of a similar statute, section 944.35(3)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2002). See § 921.0021(7)(c), Fla. Stat. (2002).
As the resolution of this appeal hinges upon statutory construction, the appeal is reviewed de novo. See State v. Burkhart, 869 So. 2d 1242, 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Section 921.0021(7)(c), exempts the assessment of victim injury points when the defendant is convicted of a violation of section 944.35(3)(b)2., which is similar to section 951.221(1), but applies exclusively to State Department of Corrections employees. § 944.35(3)(b)2., Fla. Stat.1
We affirm the trial court’s ruling because the clear language of section 921.0021(7) does not exempt victim injury points from being assessed for a violation of section 951.221(1). See Seagrave v. State, 802 So. 2d 281, 287 (Fla.2001) (“[A] basic principle of statutory construction” prevents courts from “add[ing] words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature.”).
We write, however, to suggest the Legislature may wish -to readdress section 921.0021(7)(e), insomuch as the law provides an exemption from victim injury points to a State detention worker who violates section 944.35(3)(b)2., but' does not provide the same exemption to a county or municipal detention worker who violates section 951.221(1). While the statute may appear illogical, it does not rise to the level of being “unreasonable [or] ridiculous” which would require this Court to grant Lewis the relief he requests. See, e.g., Shulmister v. City of Pompano Beach, 798 So. 2d 799, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting City of Miami Beach v. Galbut, 626 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla.1993)).
GUNTHER, STONE and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur. . Section 921.0021(7) also exempts the assessment of victim injury points for violations of section 872.06, Florida Statutes. § 921.0021(7)(d), Fla. Stat.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Reina Ocabel Gonzalez, 919 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…o the appellate court as presumptively correct as to disputed facts and all reasonable inferences and deductions drawn from them; however, the trial court’s application of the law to the facts is reviewed under the de novo standard. Murphy v. State, 898 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). In a consensual encounter, a police officer has the right to approach an individual in public and ask questions or request identification without having a founded suspicion of criminal activity; the individual may, but is not r…
-
Holmes v. State, 899 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…ng limitations upon probation violations for defendants sentenced to the state-operated boot camp program compared to those sentenced to county-operated programs, it does not rise to the level of being “unreasonable [or] ridiculous.” Lewis v. State, 898 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)(citing Shulmister v. City of Pompano Beach, 798 So. 2d 799, 802 (Fla. [*435] 4th DCA 2001)(quoting City of Miami Beach v. Galbut, 626 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla.1993))). Accordingly, we affirm. . Although the legislature may have int…
Authorities Cited
- Seagrave v. State, 802 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2001)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Galbut, 626 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1993)
- Percival D. James v. State, 798 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Shulmister v. City OF Pompano Beach, 798 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- State v. Burkhart, 869 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)