NORMAN ANDRES SOSA
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.
A defendant cannot raise for the first time on appeal a claim of fundamental error regarding jury unanimity based on charging and verdict forms, and investigative costs must be stricken when the State did not request them.
[1] A defendant cannot raise for the first time on appeal a claim of fundamental error that charging and verdict forms violated the right to a unanimous jury verdict.
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 intelligenceNorman Andres Sosa was convicted of sexual battery on a child while in a position of familial or custodial authority, lewd or lascivious molestation o…
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 Jury Unanimity cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
NORMAN ANDRES SOSA, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D2023-1133
[September 4, 2024]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Lawrence
M.
Mirman, Judge;
L.T.
Case No. 562020CF001699A.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for sexual battery on a child while in a position of familial or custodial authority; lewd or lascivious molestation by an offender over the age of eighteen with a victim between the ages of twelve to sixteen years of age; and child abuse by impregnating a minor child. He raises three challenges to his conviction: (1) the trial court erred in overruling his burden shifting objections in the State’s rebuttal argument; (2) the trial court fundamentally erred because the charge and verdict form denied him the right to a unanimous jury verdict, and the State argued that appellant could be convicted of any of the charges if he committed any of the acts over a period of years; and (3) the trial court fundamentally erred by denying appellant a twelve-person jury. We affirm as to all issues, noting in particular that appellant’s claim of fundamental error in the charging and verdict forms cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Whittingham v. State, 974 So. 2d 616, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
2
As to the sentence, the State concedes that the imposition of investigation costs of $50 was error and should be stricken, because the State did not request these costs. See Bartolone v. State, 327 So. 3d 331, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). And while appellant contends the trial court erred in imposing another $418 in court costs without statutory authority, the State has shown the statutory authority for these costs.
Affirmed and remanded to strike the $50 investigative costs from the sentencing order.
WARNER, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.