JUNIOR J. BATISTA, 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's dual convictions for lewd or lascivious molestation and conduct arising from a single act violated double jeopardy; the conviction for the lesser offense was reversed and vacated.
Dual convictions for lewd or lascivious molestation and lewd or lascivious conduct based on a single act constitute double jeopardy and the lesser conviction must be vacated.
[1] Multiple convictions for lewd or lascivious molestation and lewd or lascivious conduct arising from a single act violate double jeopardy, requiring vacation of the lesser…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBatista rubbed his genitals on the victim's leg during a single episode, resulting in dual convictions for lewd or lascivious molestation and lewd or …
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 Double Jeopardy Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Junior Batista, appeals his convictions for one count of lewd or lascivious molestation and one count of lewd or lascivious conduct. He raises two issues on appeal, but only one merits discussion. Batista claims that dual convictions for lewd or lascivious molestation and lewd or lascivious conduct, based on the single act of rubbing his genitals on the victim’s leg during a single episode, violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. The State properly concedes error on Batista’s double jeopardy claim. See Cruz v. State, 941 So.2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Accordingly, we reverse the conviction for lewd or lascivious conduct and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence on that count.1 Finding no merit in Batista’s other claim, we affirm the conviction for lewd or lascivious molestation but remand for resentencing.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, LAWSON and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arena Football League & Arena Football One, LLC v. Bryon Bishop, 220 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…turns on what we make of the “Standard Player Contract” that Bishop signed (the “Contract”). A claimant does not always need a formal employment contract to receive workers’ compensation benefits, of course, see, e.g., Jenks v. Bynum Transp., Inc., 104 So. 3d 1217, 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), but the parties agree that Bishop’s claim depends on this Contract. [*1245] Bishop contends the Contract shows he was an AFL employee; the AFL contends just the opposite.2 The judge of compensation claims sided with Bishop…
Authorities Cited
- Hardy v. State, 705 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Bertram L. Capron v. State, 948 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Cruz v. State, 941 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)