WYKIZA L. BROCK, 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.
Appellant was convicted of attempted sexual battery following a jury trial. The Florida appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by instructing the jury on attempted sexual battery as a lesser-included offense when the evidence established either a completed sexual battery or no crime at all, with no middle ground.
The trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury on attempted sexual battery over appellant's objection because the evidence proved either a completed sexual battery or no offense at all, leaving no basis in law or fact for an attempt instruction. Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.510(b), a judge shall not instruct on any lesser-included offense as to which there is no evidence.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by instructing the jury on a permissive lesser-included offense over a defendant's objection when the evidence supports either the…
[2] A judge abuses discretion and commits error by giving an instruction on a lesser-included offense over a defendant's objection when no evidence has been presented to supp…
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“The judge shall not instruct on any lesser included offense as to which there is no evidence.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.510(b) that governs lesser-included offense instructions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with sexual battery on a person 12 years of age or older under Florida law. At trial, the state presented evidence supporting a …
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 Permissive Lesser Included Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of his conviction, following a jury trial, for attempted sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, in violation of sections 777.04 and 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (2003). He contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it gave an instruction on the permissive lesser-included offense of attempted sexual battery over his objection because the evidence proved either a completed offense or none at all. Having carefully reviewed the evidence, we agree that the evidence proved either a completed sexual battery or no offense at all. Accordingly, the trial court did commit reversible error when it gave an instruction on attempted sexual battery to the jury over appellant’s objection, and we are constrained to reverse the conviction.
During the charge conference, the state requested that the trial court instruct the jury on the permissive lesser-included offense of attempted sexual battery. Appellant objected, arguing that there was no evidence to support an attempt instruction—either the jury would believe the state’s evidence, in which case a completed sexual battery occurred; or it would believe appellant’s evidence, in which case no offense occurred. The trial court overruled appellant’s objection, stating that it intended to give an attempt instruction. Immediately before the trial court instructed the jury, appellant renewed his objection to the attempt instruction, and the trial court again overruled the objection. The trial court then instructed the jury, including a charge on attempted sexual battery. This was error. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.510(b) states in pertinent part that “[t]he judge shall not instruct on any lesser included offense as to which there is no evidence.” When a judge gives an instruction on a lesser-included offense over a defendant’s objection and no evidence has been presented to support that instruction, the judge abuses his or her discretion, and error occurs. See State v. Espinosa, 686 So. 2d 1345, 1347 (Fla.1996); State v. Robinson, 771 So. 2d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Here, because the evidence established either a completed sexual battery or no crime at all, the trial court should not have given the attempt instruction and, by doing so, committed reversible error. Robinson, 771 So. 2d at 1258. Accord Gleason v. State, 591 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
By finding appellant guilty of the lesser-included offense of attempted sexual battery, the jury necessarily found appellant not guilty of the charged sexual battery. Accordingly, the prohibition against double jeopardy prohibits the state from again trying appellant on that charge. See State ex rel. Landis v. Lewis, 118 Fla. 910, 160 So. 485, 486-87 (1935). On remand, appellant may be tried only for battery in violation of section 784.03, Florida Statutes (2003), because that is the only other lesser-included offense as to which the jury was instructed. See Lee v. State, 685 So. 2d 1275, 1276-77 (Fla.1996); Gleason, 591 So. 2d at 279.
We reverse appellant’s conviction for attempted sexual battery, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Insko v. State, 969 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2007)…rrectly notes, and the State does not dispute, that because the jury acquitted him of the greater crime — lewd or lascivious conduct on a person under sixteen by one eighteen or older — he cannot be retried for that crime. See, e.g., Brock v. State, 954 So. 2d 87, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (stating that “[b]y finding appellant guilty of the lesser-included offense of attempted sexual battery, the jury necessarily found appellant not guilty of the charged sexual battery,” and “double jeopardy prohibits” the stat…
-
Ramirez-Canales v. State, 46 So. 3d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…the trial judge granted a judgment of acquittal on the sexual battery charge in Count II when he reduced it to attempted sexual battery, double jeopardy protections preclude retrial for Count II’s original sexual battery charge. See Brock v. State, 954 So. 2d 87, 88-89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Reversed and Remanded. TAYLOR, HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Morris v. State, 88 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ed offense.” Id. “When a judge gives an instruction on a lesser-included offense over a defendant’s objection and no evidence has been presented to support that instruction, the judge abuses his or her discretion, and error occurs.” Brock v. State, 954 So. 2d 87, 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). In Brock, the state requested the lesser included jury instruction of attempted sexual battery in a case charging the defendant with sexual battery. The defendant objected because “the evidence proved either a completed offe…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Espinosa, 686 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1996)
- State v. Amos Lewis, 118 Fla. 910 (Fla. 1935)
- Gleason v. State, 591 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- State v. Robinson, 771 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- LEE v. State, 685 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1996)