Sowell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sowell v. State

88 So. 3d 263, 2012 WL 1059405, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5002

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 30, 2012

DocketNo. 2D10-1267

StatusPublished

This text of 88 So. 3d 263 (Sowell 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

Sowell v. State, 88 So. 3d 263, 2012 WL 1059405, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5002 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Lee Whitcomb Sowell challenges his convictions and sentences for two counts of capital sexual battery on a child under twelve and two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation on that same child, his daughter. He was sentenced to consecutive life terms on the capital counts and to a concurrent term of thirty years’ imprisonment on each count of lewd and lascivious molestation. We affirm Sowell’s convictions and sentences for the two counts of capital sexual battery but reverse his judgments and sentences for both counts of lewd and lascivious molestation because these counts were orally nolle prossed pri- or to trial.

Sowell claims, and the State concedes, that the two lewd and lascivious counts were orally nolle prossed at a pretrial hearing and should be vacated. See Bearden v. State, 481 So.2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); see also Wilkins v. State, 90 So.3d 305, 2012 WL 178379 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The record supports this assertion, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the charges were refiled.

Sowell also argues that because the evidence of the two lewd and lascivious charges was presented along with the evidence of the capital sexual battery charges, these capital convictions also must be overturned. We do not agree. Sowell did not object at trial to the introduction of this evidence, and the admission of evidence of related but nolle prossed counts is not necessarily even reversible error, let alone fundamental error. See Holland v. State, 432 So.2d 60, 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (“A nolle pros is ... unlike an acquittal and does not preclude the admissibility ... of evidence as to the accused’s involvement in the offense alleged in the nolle prossed information. In the present case the trial court therefore did not err by admitting evidence of appellant’s involvement in [the crime for which charges were nolle prossed].” (emphasis omitted)).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

ALTENBERND and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Lee Whitcomb Sowell challenges his convictions and sentences for two counts of capital sexual battery on a child under twelve and two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation on that same child, his daughter. He was sentenced to consecutive life terms on the capital counts and to a concurrent term of thirty years’ imprisonment on each count of lewd and lascivious molestation. We affirm Sowell’s convictions and sentences for the two counts of capital sexual battery but reverse his judgments and sentences for both counts of lewd and lascivious molestation because these counts were orally nolle prossed pri- or to trial.

Sowell claims, and the State concedes, that the two lewd and lascivious counts were orally nolle prossed at a pretrial hearing and should be vacated. See Bearden v. State, 481 So.2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); see also Wilkins v. State, 90 So.3d 305, 2012 WL 178379 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The record supports this assertion, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the charges were refiled.

Sowell also argues that because the evidence of the two lewd and lascivious charges was presented along with the evidence of the capital sexual battery charges, these capital convictions also must be overturned. We do not agree. Sowell did not object at trial to the introduction of this evidence, and the admission of evidence of related but nolle prossed counts is not necessarily even reversible error, let alone fundamental error. See Holland v. State, 432 So.2d 60, 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (“A nolle pros is ... unlike an acquittal and does not preclude the admissibility ... of evidence as to the accused’s involvement in the offense alleged in the nolle prossed information. In the present case the trial court therefore did not err by admitting evidence of appellant’s involvement in [the crime for which charges were nolle prossed].” (emphasis omitted)).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

ALTENBERND and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 So. 3d 263, 2012 WL 1059405, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sowell-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack