DANA LINCOLN, 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.
A defendant's lack of remorse can be a constitutionally permissible factor in sentencing, especially when the defendant testified and failed to explain incriminating statements.
The defendant was convicted of sexual battery upon a child and argued that the trial court improperly considered his lack of remorse in sentencing. Th…
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 Lack Of Remorse cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
This appeal involves the propriety of the trial court’s enunciation of the defendant’s lack of remorse as a factor in imposing sentence on two counts of sexual battery upon a child (familial authority).1 The defendant, relying on several cases including Holton v. State, 573 So. 2d 284 (Fla.1990), Lyons v. State, 730 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) and K.Y.L. v. State, 685 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), disapproved on other grounds in State v. J.P.C., 731 So. 2d 1255 (Fla.1999), urges that lack of contrition or remorse is a constitutionally impermissible consideration in imposing sentence.
We believe that St. Val v. State, 958 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 966 So. 2d 968 (Fla.2007), offers the proper framework for deciding this issue. As in St. Val, the trial court here, in imposing a sentence within the strictures of the criminal punishment code, was not punishing the defendant for exercising his constitutional right to plead not guilty and maintain his innocence. Rather, the defendant had testified at trial and was unable to explain incriminating comments he made in recorded telephone exchanges with the child victim. In one exchange, the victim referred to the “sex part” and the defendant replied, “You didn’t enjoy that?” The defendant additionally at one point during sentencing admitted he was sorry for “the whole thing,” for “what I did,” though he then raised challenges to the child victim’s credibility.
Under these circumstances, the trial court properly took into account the defendant’s lack of remorse for his misconduct. As did the Fourth District in St. Val, we affirm the sentence and certify direct conflict with K.Y.L.
SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
MONACO and COHEN, JJ., concur. . § 794.01 l(8)(b), Fla. Stat.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peters v. State, 128 So. 3d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…emorseful, it means that he is sorry he committed the crime for which he is to be sentenced. One who so regrets his acts may not commit such acts in the future. St. Val v. State, 958 So. 2d 1146, 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also Lincoln v. State, 978 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (permitting judge to take lack of remorse into consideration where defendant’s trial testimony admitted criminal conduct). Here, there was no dispute about Peters’ participation in criminal conduct, merely a quibble about the nat…
-
Avery Corbitt v. State, 220 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…thers have held that the reason for the rule evaporates when a defendant freely and voluntarily enters- a plea and admits his involvement in the crimes or presents testimony regarding his involvement in the crimes during trial. See Lincoln v. State, 978 So. 2d 246, 247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); St. Val v. State, 958 So. 2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), review dismissed, 982 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 2008); Peake v. State, 490 So. 2d 1325, 1326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see also Peters, 128 So. 3d at 847. In Peake, the defend…
Authorities Cited
- Holton v. State, 573 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1990)
- K.Y.L. and N.L. v. State, 685 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Lyons v. State, 730 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Blanchard ST. VAL v. State, 958 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- State v. J.P.C., 731 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 1999)
- Solomon v. State, 966 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2007)