Rodarm v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodarm v. State

756 So. 2d 154, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2717, 2000 WL 275848

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 2000

DocketNo. 4D98-3825

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 756 So. 2d 154 (Rodarm 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

Rodarm v. State, 756 So. 2d 154, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2717, 2000 WL 275848 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for commission of an indecent act on a child under 16 years of age on all issues raised, noting that many of the points on appeal were not objected to or preserved at trial. As to the assessment of points on appellant’s scoresheet for penetration, appellant argues that it was error to include those additional points because the jury did not make a finding of penetration. However, we agree with McCloud v. State, 741 So.2d 512, 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(en banc) and hold that “the scoring of victim injury points under section 921.0024, Florida Statutes (1997) is a ‘sentencing factor,’ not [155]*155an element . of the offense.-... Penetration as a sentencing factor plainly does not need to be charged, nor must it be decided by a jury, nor must it be decided beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original)(footnote and citation omitted).

Affirmed.

WARNER, C.J., SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for commission of an indecent act on a child under 16 years of age on all issues raised, noting that many of the points on appeal were not objected to or preserved at trial. As to the assessment of points on appellant’s scoresheet for penetration, appellant argues that it was error to include those additional points because the jury did not make a finding of penetration. However, we agree with McCloud v. State, 741 So.2d 512, 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(en banc) and hold that “the scoring of victim injury points under section 921.0024, Florida Statutes (1997) is a ‘sentencing factor,’ not [155]*155an element . of the offense.-... Penetration as a sentencing factor plainly does not need to be charged, nor must it be decided by a jury, nor must it be decided beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original)(footnote and citation omitted).

Affirmed.

WARNER, C.J., SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

756 So. 2d 154, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2717, 2000 WL 275848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodarm-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack