Davis v. State

567 So. 2d 25, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7164, 1990 WL 135820
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 19, 1990·No. No. 89-01756·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

The defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of sexual battery upon a victim twelve years of age or older, with the use of physical force and violence not likely to cause serious personal injury. § 794.011(5), Fla.Stat. (1985). The trial court convicted him of these offenses on remand after this court had vacated the defendant’s convictions for two counts of sexual battery upon a victim who was “physically helpless” to resist. §§ 794.011(4)(a), .011(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985). See Davis v. State, 538 So.2d 515 (Fla.2d DCA), review denied, 544 So.2d 201 (Fla.1989).1 The defendant contends that the trial court erred in convicting him of these offenses because they are not lesser-degree offenses or necessarily lesser-included offenses of sexual battery upon a victim physically helpless to resist. § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1985). Because this court has previously decided the same issue adversely to the defendant, see Gould v. State, 558 So.2d 481 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. accepted, 564 So.2d 487 (Fla.1990), we affirm his convictions for the same reasons as stated in Gould.

The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in extending his term of imprisonment under the habitual offender statute because the trial judge did not make specific findings of fact regarding the protection of the public. § 775.084(3), Fla.Stat. (1985). The record, however, establishes that the trial court specifically found that it was necessary to extend the defendant’s sentences for the protection of the public. Its findings are well supported by the testimony at the sentencing hearing and the testimony at trial. At the sentencing hearing, the state presented testimony establishing the defendant’s numerous pri- or felony and misdemeanor convictions. At least one of the felony convictions occurred within five years of the defendant’s commission of his present offense. In this case, the defendant’s atrocious crimes upon his own thirteen-year-old, wheelchair-bound daughter establish by a preponderance of the evidence, and perhaps beyond a reasonable doubt, that his sentences are necessary for the protection of the public. We affirm the defendant’s extended sentences.

Affirmed.

LEHAN, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

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

Davis v. State, 567 So. 2d 25, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7164, 1990 WL 135820 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

567 So. 2d 25 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Soukup v. State
760 So. 2d 1072 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Davis v. State
581 So. 2d 586 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)