Andre v. State
| Decision Date | 20 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D08-1403.,4D08-1403. |
| Citation | 13 So.3d 103 |
| Parties | Bruno ANDRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Bruno Andre (Defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence after a jury found him guilty of, among other things, aggravated false imprisonment. We reverse Defendant's conviction for aggravated false imprisonment holding that it was fundamental error to convict Defendant of that charge where the State failed to present any evidence that the confinement of the child was without the consent of her parent or legal guardian. We find no merit to Defendant's other arguments and affirm his convictions on the following charges: (1) luring or enticing a child under the age of twelve in violation of section 787.025, Florida Statutes (2006); (2) child abuse in violation of section 827.03(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2006); and (3) lewd or lascivious molestation—offender eighteen or older, victim twelve or younger in violation of section 800.04(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2006).
The relevant facts are that on January 3, 2006, Defendant and Mona Dosuede registered C.S. (the child) for elementary school. At Dosuede's request, Defendant agreed to drive the child to school the following day. Dosuede testified that she was not the child's biological mother but that she had raised the child since she was two years old. There was no evidence presented that Dosuede had legal custody of the child.
The next day, Defendant picked up the child to take her to school. Along the way, Defendant covered the child with a shirt and while stopped at a red light, unbuckled her pants and touched her vagina. He then informed her that they were going to go to a motel. Defendant pulled up to the motel around nine in the morning. The motel clerk observed Defendant drive up and watched as the child exited the vehicle and entered the motel room while Defendant remained outside. When the motel clerk approached Defendant and asked what he was doing with the little girl, Defendant informed him that he was waiting for the child's mother. Suspicious that something was wrong, the motel clerk wrote down Defendant's license plate number. When the child came out of the room, the motel clerk approached the child and asked her if she was Defendant's daughter. She did not respond but instead got in Defendant's vehicle. Defendant then left the motel and proceeded to drop the child off at her school. The motel clerk called the police, and Defendant was subsequently arrested.
On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in convicting him of false imprisonment of a child under age thirteen when the State failed to present any evidence that the confinement of the child was without the consent of her parent or legal guardian. He concedes that he failed to preserve this issue for appeal but contends that it is properly before this Court because failure to prove an essential element of the crime constitutes fundamental error. The State responds that it did prove that element by presenting evidence that: (1) Dosuede, although not the biological mother or legal guardian, raised the child for eleven years, provided for her care, and was married to the child's natural father; and (2) Dosuede authorized Defendant to take the child to school and nowhere else.
"[W]ith two exceptions, a defendant must preserve a claim of insufficiency of the evidence through timely challenge in the trial court." F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 230 (Fla.2003). The first exception occurs in death penalty cases, where review of the sufficiency of the evidence is mandated by the rule. Id. The second exception is triggered when "the evidence is insufficient to show that a crime was committed at all." Id.; see, e.g., Vance v. State, 472 So.2d 734 (Fla.1985) (). "[A] conviction imposed upon a crime totally unsupported by evidence constitutes fundamental error." Troedel v. State, 462 So.2d 392, 399 (Fla.1984); see Rodriguez v. State, 964 So.2d 833, 836 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alfonso-Roche v. State
...of acquittal, we review the issue for fundamental error. Otero v. State, 807 So.2d 666, 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ; see Andre v. State, 13 So.3d 103, 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The defendant was convicted as a principal for the crime of grand theft of a motor vehicle. § 812.014, Fla. Stat. (201......
-
Davila v. State
... ... State, 661 So.2d 346, 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The Second District disagrees with this court on this issue. Muniz v. State, 764 So.2d 729, 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); cf. Andre v. State, 13 So.3d 103, 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (fundamental error to convict child's father of aggravated false imprisonment where there was no testimony that the child's custodian, her godmother, had legal custody or guardianship). Stated differently, if this case were pending in the Second ... ...
-
Morris v. State, Case No. 2D16-4084
...of the evidence must be preserved occurs when the evidence is insufficient to show that a crime was committed at all."); Andre v. State, 13 So.3d 103, 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (holding that it was fundamental error to convict the defendant where "the State failed to prove an essential elemen......
- Evans v. State
-
Crimes
...any legal guardian had denied permission for defendant to take the child, and the court errs in refusing to grant a JOA. Andre v. State, 13 So. 3d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) Defendant is properly convicted of kidnapping when he uses a ruse to enter the victim’s apartment, handcuffs the victim,......