Wilcox v. State

783 So. 2d 1150, 2001 WL 345183
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 10, 2001
Docket1D99-4625
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 783 So. 2d 1150 (Wilcox 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
Wilcox v. State, 783 So. 2d 1150, 2001 WL 345183 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

783 So.2d 1150 (2001)

John WILCOX, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D99-4625.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 10, 2001.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Janelle C. Gillaspie and Karen M. Holland, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

EN BANC

BARFIELD, C.J.

John Wilcox was convicted of attempted capital sexual battery and sentenced to a term of imprisonment followed by probation with conditions imposed pursuant to section 948.03, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998). By motion pursuant to Rule 3.800(b), appellant challenged the imposition of the conditions of probation, asserting that attempted capital sexual battery is an offense under chapter 777, Florida Statutes (1997), and not an offense under chapter 794, Florida Statutes (1997).

We affirm the imposition of conditions of probation pursuant to section 948.03, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), holding that attempted capital sexual battery is an offense under chapter 794, Florida Statutes. As we said in Zopf v. Singletary, 686 So.2d 680, 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), attempted sexual battery is "a crime under section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes, as modified *1151 by the `attempt' statute, section 777.04, Florida Statutes." To the extent Lee v. State, 766 So.2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), holds otherwise, we recede from Lee.

We find no merit to the remaining constitutional challenges raised by Wilcox.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, BOOTH, MINER, ALLEN, WOLF, KAHN, WEBSTER, DAVIS, BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, BROWNING, LEWIS, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Fureman
161 So. 3d 403 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Childers v. State
936 So. 2d 619 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Ream v. State
843 So. 2d 309 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Donovan v. State
821 So. 2d 1099 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Peterson v. State
795 So. 2d 176 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
State v. Thurman
791 So. 2d 1228 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Krueger v. State
790 So. 2d 554 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Ellison v. State
785 So. 2d 616 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Banks v. State
785 So. 2d 617 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Saucer v. State
785 So. 2d 617 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Thomas v. State
784 So. 2d 1235 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
783 So. 2d 1150, 2001 WL 345183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilcox-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.