PATSY WOLF, 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.
Patsy Wolf appealed her conviction for unlawfully handling a female child under fourteen in a lewd and lascivious manner, challenging the trial court's failure to comply with mandatory psychiatric examination requirements under Florida's Child Molester Act before sentencing.
The court held that the language of Section 801.051 is mandatory, not discretionary, and the trial court had no alternative but to strictly comply with the requirements for appointing qualified psychiatrists to examine the defendant and file written reports before imposing sentence.
[1] A trial court must strictly comply with the mandatory provisions of Florida Statutes Section 801.051, requiring the appointment of qualified psychiatrists for examination…
[2] The language of Florida Statutes Section 801.051, mandating psychiatric examinations for individuals convicted of certain offenses, is not discretionary.
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“We interpret and construe the language of the above-quoted statute as being mandatory and not discretionary as is contended by the state.”
Establishes that the court views the psychiatric examination requirement as mandatory rather than discretionary.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWolf was charged with violating Florida Statutes Section 800.04 by unlawfully handling and fondling a female child under fourteen years old. She enter…
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 Sentencing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Patsy Wolf, was charged in an information with unlawfully handling and fondling a female child under the age of fourteen years in a lewd and lascivious manner in violation of Florida Statutes, Section 800.04, F.S.A. At the arraignment hearing, with advice of counsel, Mr. Morse, assistant public defender in the *669Fifth Judicial Circuit, who ably represented appellant, appellant pled guilty to Counts 1, 2, and 3 of a six-count information. The guilty plea was entered knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily. Appellant was sentenced to the state penitentiary.
We are concerned with the sentencing. One of the points raised on this appeal relates to the trial court’s failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter 801, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., The Child Molester Act. Florida Statutes, Section 801.041, F.S.A., provides that one convicted under Florida Statutes, Section 800.04, F.S.A., is subject to the provisions of Chapter 801, supra, and, this court so held in Baker v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 194 So.2d 687, and Baker v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 441.
Florida Statutes, Section 801.051, F.S.A., provides as follows:
When a person has been convicted of an offense within the meaning of this chapter, the trial judge shall then appoint not less than two (2) nor more than three (3) qualified psychiatrists who are licensed physicians in the state and who have directed their professional practice primarily to the diagnosis and treatment of mental and nervous disorders for a period of not less than five (5) years, to make a personal examination of the person so convicted. The court shall not proceed under the provisions of this chapter until each psychiatrist so appointed shall have filed a separate written report of the result of his examination. (Emphasis supplied).
We interpret and construe the language of the above-quoted statute as being mandatory and not discretionary as is contended by the state. Consequently, in view of the plain, clear language of Section 801.051, supra, the trial court had no alternative but to strictly follow the requirements set forth therein before imposing sentence upon the appellant. See, also, Wilson v. State, Fla.App.1973, 282 So.2d 667 (Opinion filed September 14, 1973, Second District Court of Appeal).
We have carefully reviewed the other points presented by appellant and find them to be without merit.
For the reasons stated herein we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings and directions consistent with this opinion.
MANN, C. J., and HOBSON, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 292 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ed), and assault and battery (when a sexual act is completed or attempted), when such acts are committed against, to, with or in the presence of, a person fourteen years of age or under.” . (Fla.App.2d, 1973), 282 So. 2d 667. . (Fla.App.2d, 1973), 282 So. 2d 668. . F.S. section 801.091, F.S.A.1971. . (Fla.App.2d, 1974), 291 So. 2d 118 (Opinion filed March 1, 1974).…
-
Gable v. State, 290 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…Florida Statutes, F.S.A., brings the appellant within the purview of Chapter 801, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Baker v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1967, 194 So. 2d 687, and Baker v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1968, 206 So. 2d 441. In Wolf v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1973, 282 So. 2d 668, under substantially similar circumstances, it was established that strict compliance with Section 801.051 was mandatory. The record in this case is devoid of any indication that Section 801.051, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., was complied with. Accordi…
-
Suddreth v. State, 325 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…oral arguments and find no error in the rulings of the trial court with' the exception that appellant was sentenced without having been given psychiatric examinations as required by Section 801.051, Florida Statutes. See Wolf v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 282 So. 2d 668. The sentence imposed upon appellant is, therefore, vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for compliance with said statute. McCORD, Acting C. J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baker v. State, 194 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Baker v. State, 206 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Wilson v. State, 282 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)