Gallagher v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gallagher v. State

270 So. 3d 1290

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 2019

DocketNo. 1D16-4521

StatusPublished

This text of 270 So. 3d 1290 (Gallagher 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

Gallagher v. State, 270 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant challenges his conviction for two counts of sexual battery of a child-his own biological daughter-when she was between age six or seven, and ten or eleven. We have examined in full and on the merits the four issues he raises on appeal, and find no merit in them. In addition, we find that Appellant failed to preserve his argument that the trial court erred by failing to make an express finding that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence Appellant's similar abuse of two other girls. Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, and the record does not indicate that the trial court was unaware of the standard. See McLean v. State , 934 So.2d 1248, 1261-62 (Fla. 2006) (requiring clear and convincing evidence of prior acts of child molestation). Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Rowe, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant challenges his conviction for two counts of sexual battery of a child-his own biological daughter-when she was between age six or seven, and ten or eleven. We have examined in full and on the merits the four issues he raises on appeal, and find no merit in them. In addition, we find that Appellant failed to preserve his argument that the trial court erred by failing to make an express finding that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence Appellant's similar abuse of two other girls. Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, and the record does not indicate that the trial court was unaware of the standard. See McLean v. State , 934 So.2d 1248, 1261-62 (Fla. 2006) (requiring clear and convincing evidence of prior acts of child molestation). Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Rowe, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 So. 3d 1290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallagher-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack