Edwards v. State

613 So. 2d 508, 1993 WL 5299
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 15, 1993
Docket91-2553
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 613 So. 2d 508 (Edwards 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
Edwards v. State, 613 So. 2d 508, 1993 WL 5299 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

613 So.2d 508 (1993)

Carl Michael EDWARDS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 91-2553.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

January 15, 1993.
Rehearing Denied February 18, 1993.

Richard L. Rosenbaum, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David S. Morgan and Rebecca Roark Wall, Asst. Attys. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Carl Michael Edwards' conviction under count one for violation of section 794.011(4)(e), Florida Statutes, sexual battery upon a mentally defective person, a first-degree felony is affirmed. However, we vacate the conviction for count two which alleged a violation of section 800.04(2), Florida Statutes, sexual battery upon a child under sixteen years of age, a second-degree felony erroneously shown on the judgment as a first-degree felony. The supreme court has held that the crimes of lewd assault and sexual battery are mutually exclusive when they involve a single incident. State v. Hightower, 509 So.2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 1987). The facts of this case indicate the occurrence of a single incident involving a sexual battery. Therefore, conviction of the offense charged under section 800.04(2) was improper.

Accordingly, we vacate the conviction for count two. Because count two is vacated *509 and because the original sentence does not indicate whether the life sentence imposed was under count one or count two, or both, remand is necessary for the purpose of allowing the trial court to consider whether it wishes to confirm that the sentence originally imposed is appropriate for the remaining single count.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED.

W. SHARP, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hartline v. State
743 So. 2d 90 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
State v. Stone
677 So. 2d 982 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
DDM v. State
662 So. 2d 384 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Pierce v. State
662 So. 2d 398 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Roe v. State
654 So. 2d 1287 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Fjord v. State
634 So. 2d 714 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Lewis v. State
626 So. 2d 1073 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
613 So. 2d 508, 1993 WL 5299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.