Casado v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Casado v. State

634 So. 2d 830, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3713, 1994 WL 140726

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 22, 1994

DocketNo. 93-937

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 634 So. 2d 830 (Casado v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casado v. State, 634 So. 2d 830, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3713, 1994 WL 140726 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, Judge.

Joaquin Casado was tried by a jury and found guilty of two counts of sexual activities with a child,¹ two counts of sexual battery on a child under the age of 16 years,² three counts of lewd act upon a child³ and one count of use of a child in a sexual performance.⁴ Casado was sentenced to concurrent terms totalling 22 years in the Florida Department of Corrections followed by five years supervised probation. Casado appeals the constitutionality of sections 800.04 and 794.041(2)(b).⁵ He argues that they are unconstitutional because they prohibit a defendant who engages in sexual activity with a consenting citizen under the age of 16 years from presenting a defense of consent; a defense which would be available had the defendant been charged with the same offense upon a child 16 years of age or older. We affirm his convictions and sentences. This court has previously upheld the constitutionality of section 800.04. Jones v. State, 619 So.2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 629 So.2d 133 (Fla.1993). We specifically uphold the constitutionality of section 794.-041(2)(b) based upon the reasoning in Jones. Id. We again certify to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether the constitutional right to privacy renders unconstitutional those portions of section 800.04 and 794.041 providing that consent is not a defense to a prosecution for sexual activity with a minor under the age of 16.

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THOMPSON, Judge.

Joaquin Casado was tried by a jury and found guilty of two counts of sexual activities with a child,¹ two counts of sexual battery on a child under the age of 16 years,² three counts of lewd act upon a child³ and one count of use of a child in a sexual performance.⁴ Casado was sentenced to concurrent terms totalling 22 years in the Florida Department of Corrections followed by five years supervised probation. Casado appeals the constitutionality of sections 800.04 and 794.041(2)(b).⁵ He argues that they are unconstitutional because they prohibit a defendant who engages in sexual activity with a consenting citizen under the age of 16 years from presenting a defense of consent; a defense which would be available had the defendant been charged with the same offense upon a child 16 years of age or older. We affirm his convictions and sentences. This court has previously upheld the constitutionality of section 800.04. Jones v. State, 619 So.2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 629 So.2d 133 (Fla.1993). We specifically uphold the constitutionality of section 794.-041(2)(b) based upon the reasoning in Jones. Id. We again certify to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether the constitutional right to privacy renders unconstitutional those portions of section 800.04 and 794.041 providing that consent is not a defense to a prosecution for sexual activity with a minor under the age of 16.

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

634 So. 2d 830, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3713, 1994 WL 140726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casado-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack