CHARLES MANETTA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Charles Manetta appealed his convictions for lewd and lascivious molestation of a child. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed convictions on Counts I and IV but vacated the conviction on Count II due to a double jeopardy violation, as Counts I and II were identical and did not allege separate acts.
The court rejected Manetta's mistrial claim because he failed to secure a specific ruling on the issue and, under Pantoja v. State, mere unresolved accusations against other persons by a State witness were inadmissible. The court agreed with Manetta that double jeopardy barred two separate judgments and sentences on Counts I and II because those counts were identical in every respect and did not allege separate acts.
[1] A claim for a mistrial, continuance, or new trial based on newly revealed information is not properly preserved if the defendant fails to secure a specific ruling on the…
[2] Mere accusations of similar abuse against others by a state witness are inadmissible in the absence of an adverse adjudication on those claims.
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“in the absence of an adverse adjudication on these claims, which did not occur here, mere accusations of similar abuse against others by a State witness were inadmissible”
Establishes the legal standard under Pantoja v. State for admissibility of witness accusations, rejecting Manetta's mistrial argument
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManetta was charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious molestation: Counts I and II involved a thirteen-year-old friend of his daughter who was …
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 Lewd Or Lascivious Molestation cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals convictions and sentences for two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation of a child twelve to sixteen years of age under Section 800.4(5)(c)(2), Florida Statutes, (Counts I and II), and one count of lewd and lascivious molestation of a child less than twelve years old (Count IV)- The victim alleged in Counts I and II was a thirteen-year-old friend of his daughter who was a guest in the defendant’s home; the one in Count IV was the daughter, who was eight years old.1
I.
The first issue presented claims the right to a mistrial, continuance, and a new trial on all counts because, after the State’s case, in which the defendant’s daughter had been the primary witness against him, it was first revealed by the prosecution that she had made unresolved similar accusations against three other persons. We reject this argument both because (1) inasmuch as appellant failed to secure a specific ruling on the issue, the point was not properly preserved, see LeRetilley v. Harris, 354 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), and (2) more importantly, under Pantoja v. State, 59 So.3d 1092, 1100 (Fla.2011), in which the supreme court held that in the absence of an adverse adjudication on these claims, which did not occur here, mere accusations of similar abuse against others by a State witness were inadmissible, the argument was unavailing on its merits.
*562II.
We do agree with Manetta that double jeopardy bars the entry of two judgments and sentences on Counts I and II. This is because Counts I and II were identical in every respect2; and thus did not so much as allege separate acts which might form the basis of separate judgments even if it were permitted under the law. See Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758, 761-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (applying double jeopardy where “neither the charging information nor the jury verdict form included language clearly predicating the dispute charges on two distinct acts. The ambiguous wording of the charging information and the jury verdict makes it impossible for this court to know if the jury convicted the appellant for one act of sexual battery or two distinct acts”). There can be no question that two convictions for the same crime constitute a violation of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy in its starkest form. See Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1994).3
Accordingly, the judgments and sentences as to Counts I and IV are affirmed; the judgment and sentence as to Count II are vacated.
Affirmed in part; vacated in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 223 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…hat the charges were predicated on two distinct acts.” While we do not know what the information alleged at trial in Shelley II, we do know that the solicitations occurred “[o]ver the course of several days.” 176 So. 3d at 916. In Manetta v. State, 81 So. 3d 560, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), the court cited to Partch and found a double jeopardy violation where two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation were identical and “thus did not so much as allege separate acts which might form the basis of separate judg…
-
Alain Brugal v. State, 217 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…lascivious battery (Counts 2 through 5), and two of the three counts in the information regarding lewd and lascivious molestation (Counts 7 and 8 of the information). In doing so, the trial court relied upon this Court’s opinion in Manetta v. State, 81 So. 3d 560, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Manetta vacated a conviction for the second of two identically-worded counts in the charging information where neither the information nor the jury verdict form identified separate acts that might be the subject of separate…
-
Manetta v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…-year probation. 1 Lower Tribunal No. F05-31805. On direct appeal, this Court vacated the judgment and sentence as to one of the counts of lewd and lascivious molestation of a child between twelve and sixteen years of age. Manetta v. State, 81 So. 3d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). 3 Then in February 2021 Manetta filed a postconviction motion challenging his conviction for failing to register as a sexual offender. He claimed his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss the…
Authorities Cited
- Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Meshell, 2 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2009)
- LeRETILLEY v. Harris, 354 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Pantoja v. State, 59 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2011)
- Partch v. State, 43 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Brown v. State, 25 So. 3d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Cabanela v. State, 871 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Howard v. Howard, 4 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- J.M. v. State, 4 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)