DENNIS JAMES CARLISLE, 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 court held that while the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the necessity of restraints, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] A prima facie case of attempted lewd and lascivious battery can be established by evidence of significant steps taken toward consummating sexual activity with a minor, in…
[2] A defendant has a right to appear before the jury free from physical restraints, as the use of restraints is an inherently prejudicial practice.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of attempted lewd and lascivious battery and traveling to meet a minor. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred in deny…
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 Sixth Amendment Right To A Fair Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Dennis J. Carlisle appeals his convictions of attempted lewd and lascivious battery and traveling to meet a minor (for sexual conduct). We affirm.
Mr. Carlisle contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal regarding the charge of attempted lewd and lascivious battery. We disagree, finding this case is controlled by Bist v. State, 35 So.3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Mr. Carlisle took significant steps toward consummating his desire to have sex with a person he believed was a thirteen-year-old boy. He conducted sexually explicit email and text exchanges and arranged to meet the boy and his father to engage in sexual activity. Beyond these preparatory acts, Mr. Carlisle drove to the boy’s home, arriving with lubricant to utilize in his sexual escapades. These acts, viewed in the light most favorable to the *627State, are sufficient to prove a prima facie case of attempted lewd and lascivious battery.
Mr. Carlisle also argues that it was error to deny his request for an evi-dentiary hearing to determine whether the use of restraints was necessary during his trial. We agree. As a general rule, a defendant has the right to appear before the jury free from physical restraints. See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970). The Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to a fair trial means that an accused “is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial, and not on grounds of official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or other circumstances not adduced as proof at trial.” Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 485, 98 S.Ct. 1930, 56 L.Ed.2d 468 (1978). However, while this right is not absolute, since it is an “inherently prejudicial practice,” the use of restraints is permissible only when justified “by an essential state interest specific to each trial.” Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568-69, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986).
In Bello v. State, 547 So.2d 914 (Fla.1989), the court held that a hearing on necessity must precede the decision to shackle, if a defendant timely objects and requests an inquiry into the necessity for the restraints.1 Here, apparently the sheriff, not the court, made the decision to shackle Mr. Carlisle. The court should not blindly defer to the security measures established by the sheriff or other security official. See Jackson v. State, 698 So.2d 1299, 1302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); McCoy v. State, 503 So.2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Shackling must not be done absent some showing of necessity. Bello, 547 So.2d at 918. That did not occur here. Mr. Car-lisle’s request for a hearing should have been granted.
While the trial court erred in requiring Mr. Carlisle to be shackled in the jury’s presence, the error was harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986) (stating harmless error test places burden on state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that error complained of did not contribute to resulting verdict). Here, the court took action to limit the jury’s awareness of the shackles. Further, the evidence was not in substantial dispute. The jury had copies of the relevant emails and text messages, together with Mr. Carlisle’s inculpatory statement. The trial court’s error in failing to make a case-specific, individual assessment of the nature of any danger posed by the Mr. Car-lisle was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Car-lisle’s convictions.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mizner v. State, 154 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…n arrived at a residence or a vehicle within which he believed that the minor was waiting. In those cases, unlike this one, the target had a realistic expectation of imminent contact with the minor. See Hudson, 745 So. 2d at 1000; Carlisle v. State, 105 So. 3d 625, 626-27 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Bist v. State, 35 So. 3d 936, 941-42 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Here, Mr. Mizner’s lack of his own transportation prevented the FDLE Agent and the other law enforcement officers from achieving their tactical goal of having hi…
-
Batchelor v. State, 193 So. 3d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…charge. The facts in this case are similar to other cases finding the evidence sufficient to prove an overt act where the defendant was not arrested until he arrived at the location at which he believed the minor was waiting. See Carlisle v. State, 105 So. 3d 625, 626-27 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Bist v. State, 35 So. 3d 936, 938-42 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); see also Hudson, 745 So. 2d at 999-1001 (holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish an overt act where the defendant purchased a plane ticket and sent…
-
Bruck v. State, 115 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Carlisle v. State, 105 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Bist v. State, 35 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). ORFINGER, C.J., PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
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 (11 total)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970)
- Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1986)
- Bello v. State, 547 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Casseus, 513 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1987)
- Diaz v. State, 513 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1987)
- Deepak Bist v. State, 35 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Hayes & Caraballo, PL v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- CAP Constr., Inc. v. TGSV Constr., Inc., 698 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)