DR v. State
Decision Date | 10 August 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 5D00-2962.,5D00-2962. |
Citation | 790 So.2d 1242 |
Parties | D.R., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Leonard R. Ross, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
D.R. appeals a final order withholding adjudication for the crime of lewd and lascivious exhibition. He contends that he was wrongfully convicted of a crime that was not alleged in the information. We agree and reverse.
Counts 1, sexual battery, and Count 2, lewd and lascivious exhibition, of the petition state:
After hearing the case non-jury, the trial judge concluded:
D.R. contends that both counts of the petition alleged that he committed the sexual act of "placing his penis in or in union with [K.T.'s] vagina." Since the judge found reasonable doubt regarding contact and penetration in Count 1, D.R. should not have been convicted on Count 2. The state argues that D.R. failed to preserve this argument for appeal, and even if he had, the court did not err in disregarding this language as unnecessary surplusage.
We address the preservation of error issue first. After the court rendered its verdict, D.R., filed a motion for arrest of judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.610(c) and (d). During the hearing on this motion, D.R.'s attorney admitted that he failed to file the motion within 10 days of the verdict being rendered, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.590. The court denied the motion as untimely.
In a criminal case, the trial court would have been correct because the 10 day time limit in rule 3.590 is jurisdictional. See State v. Johnson, 651 So.2d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
. However, this was a juvenile delinquency proceeding. Juvenile proceedings are not governed by the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See A.F. v. State, 718 So.2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). D.R. filed a motion to arrest judgment under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.610. Although this rule does not exist in the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, a comparable rule providing for a rehearing can be found in Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.130.
Unlike Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.590, which requires the motion for arrest of judgment to be filed "within 10 days after the rendition of the verdict or the finding of the court," Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.130(b)(1) requires a rehearing motion to be filed "within 10 days of the entry of the order being challenged." The juvenile rule further specifies that the "order being challenged" applies to an "order ruling on a pretrial motion, an order of adjudication, or an order withholding adjudication." Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.130(a).
In the instant case, the court entered an order withholding adjudication of delinquency after the motion for arrest of judgment was filed.1 Consequently, if the trial court had treated the motion for arrest of judgment as a motion for rehearing, it should have addressed the merits of the motion. If the trial court had decided the two rules were not comparable, it still should have allowed D.R. to raise the issue. See K.O. v. State, 765 So.2d 901, 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
. Because the trial judge erred in dismissing the motion as untimely, D.R. may raise this argument for the first time on appeal. Id.
On the merits, this court has previously held that:
rev. denied, 581 So.2d 1311 (Fla.1991).
Zwick v. State, 730 So.2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
In Rallo v. State, 726 So.2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), the defendant was charged and convicted of willfully placing his penis "into or in union with the anus" of a child, a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child. However, the proof at trial proved only that the defendant's hands touched the child's anus. The state contended that it proved a simulated sexual battery, which is an act included under the statute charged. The district court reversed, holding that:
"The proof at trial must substantially conform to the allegations of the indictment or information in order that the defendant not be prejudiced in the preparation of a defense or subject him to reprosecution for the same offense." See Ross v. State, 664 So.2d 1004, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
. See also Aaron v. State, 284 So.2d 673, 677 (Fla.1973) () Accordingly, since the evidence produced at trial was not sufficient to prove the charge alleged in count V of the information, we reverse Rallo's conviction of count V.
Similarly, in the instant case, D.R. was charged with "a sexual act" by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morgan v. State
...; Diaz v. State, 38 So.3d 791, 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ; Trahan v. State, 913 So.2d 729, 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; D.R. v. State, 790 So.2d 1242, 1244–45 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ; Zwick v. State, 730 So.2d 759, 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Consistent with this rule, a criminal defendant is entitled......
-
Morgan v. State
...Diaz v. State, 38 So. 3d 791, 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Trahan v. State, 913 So. 2d 729, 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); D.R. v. State, 790 So. 2d 1242, 1244-45 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Zwick v. State, 730 So. 2d 759, 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Consistent with this rule, a criminal defendant is entitled ......
-
Fesh v. State
...the charged offense." Id. (first citing Trahan v. State , 913 So. 2d 729, 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; then citing D.R. v. State , 790 So. 2d 1242, 1244-45 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ; and then citing Zwick v. State , 730 So. 2d 759, 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) )."Evidence that a defendant committed a co......
-
Woodall v. State
...various ways, the evidence must establish it to have been committed in the manner charged in the [charging instrument].” D.R. v. State, 790 So.2d 1242, 1244–45 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (quoting Long v. State, 92 So.2d 259, 260 (Fla.1957)). The State's failure to prove that the offense was commit......