Mathuus v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mathuus v. State

776 So. 2d 1090, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1051, 2001 WL 99203

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

DocketNo. 4D00-844

StatusPublished

This text of 776 So. 2d 1090 (Mathuus 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

Mathuus v. State, 776 So. 2d 1090, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1051, 2001 WL 99203 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

WARNER, C.J.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for several counts of capital sexual battery, sexual battery under familial authority, and felony child abuse. Appellant’s contention on appeal is that the state failed to prove that any of the charged sexual batteries to the child victim occurred within the time periods alleged in each count of the information. To the contrary, the victim testified how old she was when the sexual batteries occurred, and the trial court noted that her age in each instance fell within the time frames of the charge. The appellant never sought to narrow the time frames as alleged in the information. Cf. Dell’Orfano v. State, 616 So.2d 38 (Fla.1993). There was no error.

The state concedes, however, that appellant’s sentences on Counts V, VII, and VIII must be reversed for resentencing because those sentences were based on the 1995 sentencing guidelines declared unconstitutional under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d [1091]*1091620 (Fla.2000). See also Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000). The sentences on these counts are outside the range permitted by the 1994 guidelines. We thus remand for resentencing based upon the valid laws in effect at the time of the offenses.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for re-sentencing.

FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

WARNER, C.J.

We affirm appellant’s convictions for several counts of capital sexual battery, sexual battery under familial authority, and felony child abuse. Appellant’s contention on appeal is that the state failed to prove that any of the charged sexual batteries to the child victim occurred within the time periods alleged in each count of the information. To the contrary, the victim testified how old she was when the sexual batteries occurred, and the trial court noted that her age in each instance fell within the time frames of the charge. The appellant never sought to narrow the time frames as alleged in the information. Cf. Dell’Orfano v. State, 616 So.2d 38 (Fla.1993). There was no error.

The state concedes, however, that appellant’s sentences on Counts V, VII, and VIII must be reversed for resentencing because those sentences were based on the 1995 sentencing guidelines declared unconstitutional under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d [1091]*1091620 (Fla.2000). See also Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000). The sentences on these counts are outside the range permitted by the 1994 guidelines. We thus remand for resentencing based upon the valid laws in effect at the time of the offenses.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for re-sentencing.

FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

776 So. 2d 1090, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1051, 2001 WL 99203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathuus-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack