CARMINE CHARLES FALCO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court held that the term 'custodial authority' in section 794.041(2) is not unconstitutionally vague because it has a commonly understood definition.
Appellant was convicted of multiple sex offenses involving a child under Florida statutes. He appealed, arguing that the term 'custodial authority' wa…
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 Common Understanding Of Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted on multiple counts of sexual activity by a person in custodial authority with a child under section 794.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), of sexual battery on a person less than 12 years of age under section 794.011(2), and of promoting the sexual performance of a child under section 827.071(3). He was thereafter sentenced to 6 consecutive life terms plus 265 years. We affirm in all respects and comment briefly on a constitutional issue raised.
Appellant contends that as the term “custodial authority” is not defined by section 794.041(2), it is unconstitutional as vague, indefinite, and over-broad.1 See State v. Winters, 346 So. 2d 991 (Fla.1977); Warren v. State, 572 So. 2d 1376 (Fla.1991). However, a criminal law is not “vague” simply because prohibited conduct is described in general terms where persons of common understanding can comprehend the meaning of the terms in question. State v. Joyce, 361 So. 2d 406 (Fla.1978).
In Hallberg v. State, 649 So. 2d 1355 (Fla.1994), the supreme court addressed the application of section 794.041, stating that “the term ‘custodial,’ absent a statutory definition, must be construed in accordance with the commonly understood definition as one having custody and control of another.” Although the supreme court in Hallberg was not asked to address the constitutionality of the statute, the court made clear that there exists today a commonly understood definition of “custodial authority.” Accordingly, we find Appellant’s constitutional challenge to be without merit.
FARMER, J., and STREITFELD, JEFFREY, Associate Judge, concur. . We note that there is no contention in the instant case that Appellant also stood in a "familial" relationship with the victims.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hull v. State, 686 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…621 So. 2d 693, 705-06 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (Altenbernd, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)), which are indispensable to a finding of the “familial or custodial authority” required for a violation of the statute.2 See also Falco v. State, 669 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), review denied, 672 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1996); Stridden v. State, 504 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Coleman v. State, 485 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, the convictions and sentences under review are reversed with d…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Winters, 346 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1977)
- Warren v. State, 572 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1991)
- Hallberg v. State, 649 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Joyce, 361 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1978)