EUSEBIO LAZARO MEDINA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Eusebio Lazaro Medina appealed his conviction on five counts including sexual battery, burglary, aggravated battery, and kidnapping. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions but certified a constitutional question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether the 1995 criminal sentencing guidelines violated the Florida Constitution's single-subject requirement.
The kidnapping conviction was proper based on sufficient asportation evidence. The jury instruction on consent was erroneous but harmless because the victim affirmatively withdrew consent. The constitutional question regarding the sentencing guidelines was certified to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance.
[1] Asportation of a victim from one room to another within a residence is sufficient to support a kidnapping conviction.
[2] A burglary conviction requires proof that consent to enter a structure was withdrawn; the mere commission of a crime within a structure does not automatically revoke prio…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“asportation of rape victim from kitchen to bedroom of residence sufficient to support kid-naping conviction”
Establishes that the kidnapping conviction is supported by sufficient evidence of movement within the residence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Medina was convicted of sexual battery, burglary, aggravated battery, and kidnapping. The evidence showed he committed crimes within the vic…
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 Article Iii, Section 6 Of The Florida Constitution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eusebio Lazaro Medina (“defendant”) appeals from a conviction and sentence on five counts of sexual battery, burglary, aggravated battery, and kidnaping. The defendant contends: (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the kidnaping offense; (2) that his burglary conviction must be reversed because the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the commission of a crime within a structure revokes any previous consent to the defendant’s presence in the structure, and; (3) that his sentence pursuant to the 1995 criminal guidelines, set forth in chapter 95-184, must be vacated because the guidelines were enacted in violation of Article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution.
The defendant’s first contention is clearly covered and negated by Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1983) (asportation of rape victim from kitchen to bedroom of residence sufficient to support kidnaping conviction), and merits no further comment. With regard to the defendant’s second contention, we agree that the court erred in providing the instruction at issue. See Marquez v. State, 721 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (mere fact that defendant commits crime within a structure does not require a finding that permission to enter has been withdrawn to support a burglary conviction). The court’s error in this regard, however, was harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). The uncontroverted evidence showed that the victim affirmatively withdrew her consent to the defendant’s presence within her residence.
Finally, although we do not believe that chapter 95-184 violates the constitution’s single-subject requirement, see, Higgs v. State, 695 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(finding a chapter 95-182 constitutional), we follow Trapp v. State, 736 So. 2d 736, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1431 (Fla. 1st DCA June 17, 1999) and Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 720 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1998) in certifying the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance: DOES CHAPTER 95-184 VIOLATE ARTICLE III, SECTION 6 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
The judgment entered below is affirmed in all respects.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diaz v. State, 752 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…has overruled other cases from this Court which formerly upheld the constitutionality of the 1995 sentencing guidelines. See Johnson v. State, 744 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Gonzalez v. State, 742 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Medina v. State, 743 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Valdes v. State, 728 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Furthermore, we find that the date of the defendant’s offenses, November 1, 1996, falls within the window period to challenge Chapter 95-184 on the basis that it violates the…
-
Eusebio Lazaro Medina v. State, 760 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 2000)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Medina v. State, 743 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), in which the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Eusebio Lazaro Medina’s convictions and sentences, and certified the following question to this Court as a matter of great public importance: DOES CHAPTER 95-184, LAWS OF FLOR…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983)
- Caison v. State, 695 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 736 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Marquez v. State, 721 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)