FLORENTINO DE LOS SANTOS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Unpreserved challenges to sufficiency of evidence are reviewable only in capital cases or when there is insufficient evidence that a defendant committed any crime, and whether conduct was lewd or lascivious is a factual determination for the jury.
[1] Unpreserved challenges to the sufficiency of evidence are reviewable only in two circumstances: mandatory appellate review in capital cases and cases where there is insuf…
[2] Whether conduct constitutes a lewd or lascivious act is a question of fact for the jury to determine based on the totality of the circumstances and is not subject to dism…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“There are only two instances in which an unpreserved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence can be reviewed: (1) the mandatory review by this Court of the evidence by which a capital defendant was convicted and sentenced to death; and (2) when there is insufficient evidence that a defendant committed any crime.”
Monroe v. State, 191 So. 3d 395, 401 (Fla. 2016)
Florentino de los Santos appealed a conviction from the Circuit Court for Polk County. The appeal involved challenges to the sufficiency of evidence 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 Lewd And Lascivious Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-0765 Lower Tribunal No. 2024-CF-000962
FLORENTINO DE LOS SANTOS, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Catherine L. Combee, Judge.
June 12, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Monroe v. State, 191 So. 3d 395, 401 (Fla. 2016), receded from on other grounds by Steiger v. State, 328 So. 3d 926, 932 (Fla. 2021) (“There are only two instances in which an unpreserved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence can be reviewed: (1) the mandatory review by this Court of the evidence by which a capital defendant was convicted and sentenced to death; and (2) when there is insufficient evidence that a defendant committed any crime."); Rosen v. State, 940 So. 2d 1155, 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“This court has held that when conduct occurs as described in the statute, the question of whether the acts were committed lewdly or lasciviously is one of fact. . . . Thus, it was up to the jury to decide whether Rosen's behavior violated the statute based upon the totality of the circumstances. Whether Rosen's acts were intentional acts of a lewd and lascivious nature depended on the jury's factual determination of his intent when he touched the children."); State v. Santiago, 938 So. 2d 603, 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ("Whether Santiago acted with lewd or lascivious intent must be decided by the trier of fact and is not subject to dismissal by the trial court upon Santiago's Motion to Dismiss."); Adaway v. State, 902 So. 2d 746, 748 (Fla. 2005) ("Like the United States Supreme Court, we have been reluctant to declare a sentence cruel or unusual simply because of its length. . . . As we have stated more than once, 'the length of the sentence actually imposed is generally said to be a matter of legislative prerogative.' . . . We noted in Hall [v. State, 823 So. 2d 757, 760 (Fla. 2002), abrogation on other grounds as recognized in State v. Johnson, 122 So. 3d 856, 862 (Fla. 2013),] that both '[t]he Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution have historically provided protection relative to the mode and method of punishment, not the length of incarceration.").
STARGEL, NARDELLA and MIZE, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Kimberly Nolen Hopkins, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and J. Wade Stidham, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2002)
- Darrick Terrell Adaway v. State, 902 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2005)
- Monroe v. State, 191 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 2016)
- State v. Jayson Santiago, 938 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Rosen v. State, 940 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)