Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cleveland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 4, 2014No. 1D12-5228Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPadovano, J.

I dissent from the part of the court’s decision that affirms the defendant’s conviction for solicitation to commit lewd or lascivious conduct. In my view, the evidence presented by the state was not sufficient to satisfy the elements of proof required by the statute proscribing this offense. I join in the court’s decision to the extent that it requires resentencing with a proper renewed offer of counsel.

Section 800.04(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2010), requires evidence that the offender solicited the victim “to commit a lewd or lascivious act.” (Emphasis added.) This language plainly refers to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Randall v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
  2. Stumpf v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API