Cochran v. State
| Decision Date | 11 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-00167,92-00167 |
| Citation | 622 So.2d 166 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D1817 Martha COCHRAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Steven L. Bolotin, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David R. Gemmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Martha Cochran has appealed from a conviction for battery upon a person 65 years of age or older. We reverse and remand for reclassification of the offense from a third degree felony to a first degree misdemeanor and for appropriate resentencing.
Cochran, a worker in a nursing home, was charged with battering an elderly incompetent woman who was approximately 80 years old at the time of the offense. The statute Cochran was convicted of violating, section 784.08(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), provided, at the time of the misconduct attributed to her, as follows:
(2) Whenever a person is charged with knowingly committing an assault or aggravated assault or a battery or aggravated battery upon a person 65 years of age or older, the offense for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as follows:
(c) In the case of a battery, from a misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree.
Cochran contended that it was necessary for the state to allege and prove that she knew that her victim was over the age of 65 in order for her to be convicted of the enhanced offense. Cochran is correct. Both the first and fourth districts, in dealing with this statute, have clearly held that enhancement of a misdemeanor battery to a third degree felony based on the victim's age requires the defendant to know that he or she is battering a person 65 or older. See Gordon v. State, 603 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Bryant v. State, 599 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); State v. Nelson, 577 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Although the statute has been amended to eliminate the knowledge requirement, see section 784.08(2)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), retroactive application of the current statute to this offense would violate the ex post facto prohibition. See Saavedra v. State, 576 So.2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), affirmed, 622 So.2d 952 (Fla.1993). Because no evidence was adduced to prove that Cochran knew the victim's age, we must remand for reclassification of the offense to a first degree misdemeanor.
At resentencing for the first degree misdemeanor, the trial court must also reexamine the special conditions of probation imposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramroop v. State
...of the victim's status, although knowledge of the victim's status was not expressly required in the statute. See Cochran v. State, 622 So.2d 166, 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The Legislature then revised the statute to make clear that the penalty shall increase by one degree “regardless of wheth......
-
Hamrick v. State, 94-0859
...felony based on the victim's age requires the defendant to know that he or she is battering a person 65 or older." Cochran v. State, 622 So.2d 166, 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); see also State v. Nelson, 577 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Thus, an even stronger argument against a double jeopardy ......
-
Smith v. State
...proof of actual knowledge on the part of the defendant that he or she is battering a person 65 years of age or older. Cochran v. State, 622 So.2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Gordon v. State, 603 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Bryant v. State, 599 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); State v. Nelson,......
-
Jones v. State, 2D13–1141.
...court's interpretation of section 784.08(2) was adopted by this court and other district courts of appeal. See Cochran v. State, 622 So.2d 166, 166–67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ; Smith v. State, 650 So.2d 689, 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) ; Gordon v. State, 603 So.2d 512, 513–14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). But......