SANDRA D. HOSKINS AND MICHAEL MANCUSO, D/B/A SWEETHEARTS, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the Department of Business Regulation's revocation of appellants' alcoholic beverage license for operating an establishment for lewdness through lap dancing performances. The court rejected arguments that amending the charges post-hearing, characterizing the conduct as protected speech, or the failure to identify patrons constituted reversible error.
The court affirmed the revocation, holding that the amendment of charges was not reversible error because conduct violating section 796.07 is a lesser-included offense of section 796.01; the lap dancing conduct constituted lewdness; and the conduct was not protected speech, and the failure to identify patrons did not violate due process.
[1] Operating a building for the purpose of lewdness is a violation of section 796.07(2)(a), Florida Statutes.
[2] A charge may be amended to allege a lesser-included offense after a hearing has taken place.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Conduct in violation of section 796.07 is a lesser-included offense of that in violation of section 796.01.”
Establishes that amending charges to a lesser-included offense does not constitute reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Hoskins and Mancuso operated Sweethearts, an establishment where dancers performed lap dances involving rubbing their bodies, including gen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lewdness cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.
We affirm the final order of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, which revoked the alcoholic beverage license of appellants on the basis of violating section 796.07(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), which proscribes operating a building for the purpose of lewdness.
We disagree with appellant's argument that the division director’s amendment in the final order, after the hearing had already taken place, of the charges in the notice to show cause so as to charge appellant under section 796.07(2)(a), rather than under section 796.01, as originally charged, constituted reversible error. Conduct in violation of section 796.07 is a lesser-included offense of that in violation of section 796.01. See Carlson v. State, 405 So. 2d 173 (Fla.1981); Wolfe v. State, 576 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Cf. Golden v. State, 578 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (appellate court, pursuant to section 924.34, Florida Statutes (1987), directed trial court to enter judgment for “lesser included offense” described in section 796.07(2)(a) after Warren v. State, 572 So. 2d 1376 (Fla.1991) overturned section 796.01 as unconstitutionally vague).
We also disagree with appellant’s argument that the conduct of which evidence was produced in support of the charge was not lewd. That conduct involved what is known as “lap dancing.” There was evidence that during these dances, appellants’ dancers would, performing to the rhythm of music, rub parts of their bodies, including genital areas, breasts and buttocks, through brief clothing against the patrons’ genital areas and faces. Testimony indicated that the dances included simulated sexual activity. See G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 362 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (lewdness found from dancer having rubbed continually her buttocks and vaginal area against legs of undercover officer posing as a patron). See also Commonwealth, Pa. Liquor Control Bd. v. CIC Investors No. 870, LTD., 137 Pa.Commw. 48, 584 A. 2d 1094 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1990) (lewd conduct found from male entertainer having stripped down to G-string, sat on woman’s lap, and made “explicit movements”).
We find without merit appellants’ additional arguments that the foregoing conduct was a protected form of free speech and that the failure of law enforcement officers to identify patrons present during the conduct constituted a denial of appellants’ right to due process.
Affirmed.
THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Warren v. State, 572 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1991)
- G & B OF Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, 362 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Carlson v. State, 405 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1981)
- Zebbie Thompkins v. State, 576 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Golden v. State, 578 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)