ANGEL RAMIREZ-CANALES, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Angel Ramirez-Canales's conviction for attempted sexual battery on Count II because the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted sexual battery when the evidence established the completed offense of sexual battery. Double jeopardy protections now preclude retrial on the original sexual battery charge.
The court reversed Ramirez-Canales's conviction on Count II alone, holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on attempted sexual battery when the evidence supported only a verdict of guilty for the completed offense of sexual battery. Double jeopardy protections now preclude retrial on the original sexual battery charge.
[1] A trial court errs in instructing the jury on an attempted offense when the evidence supports only the completed offense and not the attempt.
[2] Double jeopardy protections preclude retrial for an original charge when the trial court granted a judgment of acquittal on that charge and reduced it to an attempted off…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 judge shall not instruct the jury if there is no evidence to support the attempt and the only evidence proves a completed offense”
Establishes the governing rule under Florida law that jury instructions on attempted offenses are improper when evidence supports only the completed offense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRamirez-Canales was charged with two counts of sexual battery by a person in familial authority (Counts I and II) and one count of lewd molestation by…
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.
Appellant, Angel Ramirez-Canales, was charged by amended information with two counts of sexual battery by a person in familial authority (Counts I and II) and one count of lewd molestation by a person in familial authority (Count III). He was convicted and sentenced to thirty years in prison on Counts I and III and fifteen years in prison on the lesser included offense of attempted sexual battery on Count II. This appeal concerns only his conviction and sentence on attempted sexual battery (Count II). We reverse on that count alone, because the trial court erred in instructing the jury on attempted sexual battery where the evidence established and supported a verdict of guilt for the completed offense of sexual battery. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.510(a) (providing, in pertinent part, that “[t]he judge shall not instruct the jury if there is no evidence to support the attempt and the only evidence proves a completed offense”). See also Gleason v. State, 591 So.2d 278, 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that it “was error to charge the jury on attempted sexual battery when ‘... there was no evidence to support such attempt and the only evidence prove[d] a completed offense.’ ” (citations omitted)); Wilson v. State, 622 So.2d 31, 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (affirming the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the permissive lesser included offenses of attempted sexual battery and attempted lewd assault where the evidence called for a jury finding that the defendant either committed the completed offenses or none at all).
Because the trial judge granted a judgment of acquittal on the sexual battery charge in Count II when he reduced it to attempted sexual battery, double jeopardy protections preclude retrial for Count II’s original sexual battery charge. See Brock v. State, 954 So.2d 87, 88-89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
Reversed and Remanded.
TAYLOR, HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morris v. State, 88 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…esent case, “the evidence established either a completed sexual battery or no crime at all” and thus “the trial court should not have given the attempt instruction and, by doing so, committed reversible error.” Id. See also Ramirez-Canales v. State, 46 So. 3d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (finding error in instructing the jury on attempted sexual battery where the evidence established and supported a verdict of guilt for the completed offense of sexual battery); Gleason v. State, 591 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…
Authorities Cited
- Wilson v. State, 622 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Gleason v. State, 591 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Wykiza L. Brock v. State, 954 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)