Crenshaw v. State, BH-16
| Decision Date | 02 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BH-16,BH-16 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1469,490 So.2d 1054 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1469 Willie Lee CRENSHAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael Allen, Public Defender, Larry G. Bryant, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Henri C. Cawthon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Crenshaw appeals from his conviction of lewd and lascivious assault on a child less than 14 years of age in contravention of Section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1983). We affirm without prejudice to whatever relief Crenshaw may seek in the trial court.
The evidence against Crenshaw at trial consisted of the testimony of the child, approximately seven years of age, that on one occasion he had exposed himself to her in the shower and on another that he touched her vaginal area with his penis while she was in bed. The child had previously related these incidents to the pediatrician who was treating her for a slight vaginal discharge. The pediatrician testified that his examination had revealed no physical trauma and that he could not say with certainty that the discharge had been caused by an assault. A caseworker testified for the State that the child had demonstrated the incidents for her using anatomically correct dolls.
Crenshaw testified on his own behalf, denying the crime. The child's mother also testified for the defense, denying that the child ever told her of the incidents; this testimony was impeached by the caseworker. The jury returned a verdict finding Crenshaw guilty as charged and he was sentenced to 15 years incarceration. His court-appointed private counsel filed no motion for new trial and withdrew from the case after filing the necessary documents for this appeal.
Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981), established that an appellate court cannot reverse a conviction on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Tibbs at 1123. However, the court was specific that, based on Rule 9.140(f), Fla.R.App.P., which provides that "[i]n the interest of justice, the court may grant any relief to which any party is entitled," the appellate court could still reverse in such cases for fundamental injustice occurring at trial. Tibbs at 1126.
In Robinson v. State, 462 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (Robinson II ), the defendant contended that in the interest of justice his conviction should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial based on defense counsel's failure to timely file a motion for new trial, his only avenue after Tibbs for review of the weight of the evidence. This court held that the effect of Tibbs was to render defense counsel's obligation to timely file a motion for new trial substantially analogous to his obligation to file a notice of appeal. Therefore, his failure to do so should constitute ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of defendant's constitutional rights. The court proceeded to reverse Robinson's conviction "in the interest of justice" and grant a new trial. Crenshaw relies on Robinson to argue that his conviction should be similarly reversed. We disagree.
In reversing Robinson's conviction in the interest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez v. State, 3D02-415.
...postconviction relief. State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Lorenz v. State, 806 So.2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Crenshaw v. State, 490 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). As to count 2, for possession of burglary In order for the State to establish the screwdriver was a burglary tool, the St......
-
Huckaba v. State, 1D17-502
...evidence that such a motion would have been granted, the remedy is a postconviction motion, not direct appeal. Crenshaw v. State , 490 So.2d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Thus, based on the relevant evidence admitted at trial, we find nothing in the record to show that the trial court wou......
-
Munroe v. State, BM-117
...of acquittal or a motion for new trial being tendered to the trial court. State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Crenshaw v. State, 490 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Munroe's codefendant, Downing, however, timely sought a new trial. Although we have found no authority squarely responsiv......
-
Manley v. State
...has been appropriately described as a "unique situation" wherein it was clear the motion would have been granted. Crenshaw v. State, 490 So.2d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We agree with the First District in Williams v. State, 553 So.2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), when they stated Robinson ......