State v. Rosario

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Rosario

78 So. 3d 688, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1046, 2012 WL 245561

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 27, 2012

Docket5D10-4223

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 So. 3d 688 (State v. Rosario) 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

State v. Rosario, 78 So. 3d 688, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1046, 2012 WL 245561 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals the Order vacating a jury verdict that found Roberto Rosario to be guilty of sexual battery on a physically helpless person in violation of section 794.01l(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2008). Rosario has not filed an answer brief. We reverse the Order because the jury verdict finding that Rosario did commit a sexual battery on the victim was not based on an erroneous jury instruction. See State v. Pate, 656 So.2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (holding that pursuant to the definition of sexual battery in section 794.011(l)(h), Florida Statutes, “the state is not required to prove penetration in order to establish a sexual battery. Rather, ‘oral ... union with, the sexual organ of another ... ’ constitutes sexual battery” (quoting § 794.011(l)(h), Fla. Stat.)).

Accordingly, we reverse the Order under review and remand this case to the trial court to enter judgment in accord with the jury verdict and for sentencing.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, MONACO, and COHEN, JJ, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals the Order vacating a jury verdict that found Roberto Rosario to be guilty of sexual battery on a physically helpless person in violation of section 794.01l(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2008). Rosario has not filed an answer brief. We reverse the Order because the jury verdict finding that Rosario did commit a sexual battery on the victim was not based on an erroneous jury instruction. See State v. Pate, 656 So.2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (holding that pursuant to the definition of sexual battery in section 794.011(l)(h), Florida Statutes, “the state is not required to prove penetration in order to establish a sexual battery. Rather, ‘oral ... union with, the sexual organ of another ... ’ constitutes sexual battery” (quoting § 794.011(l)(h), Fla. Stat.)).

Accordingly, we reverse the Order under review and remand this case to the trial court to enter judgment in accord with the jury verdict and for sentencing.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, MONACO, and COHEN, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 3d 688, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1046, 2012 WL 245561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rosario-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack