Case Name: James Eugene SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-02-07
Citations: 632 So. 2d 644
Docket Number: No. 91-3455
Parties: James Eugene SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part with written opinions.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 632
Pages: 644–647

Head Matter:
James Eugene SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 91-3455.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 7, 1994.
Rehearing Denied March 22, 1994.
Ronald W. Johnson of Kinsey, Troxel, Johnson & Walborsky, P.A. Pensacola, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Sonya Roebuck Horbelt and Amelia L. Beisner, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellant appeals from his convictions and sentences on four counts of attempting to handle, fondle, or make an assault upon a child under the age of 16 years in a lewd, lascivious or indecent manner, as proscribed by section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990). He argues that the undisputed material facts upon which the charges were based do not establish a prima facie case of guilt and that the trial court therefore erred in denying his Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss all counts. Concluding that the undisputed material facts were sufficient to establish a prima facie case as to only two of the charged crimes, we affirm two of the appellant's convictions, we reverse the two others, and we remand for resentencing.
Counts I and II of the information were based upon the following undisputed material facts: On December 8, 1990, two girls, ages 13 and 14, were walking along a sidewalk when the appellant, who was driving a van, said to them, "Hey, girls, show me your pussy." The two girls then took a back road to a church where they sat in the sanctuary for several minutes because they were frightened of the appellant. The girls then walked to a fast food restaurant and were standing in line to get their food when the appellant drove up outside and was looking into the restaurant. Because the girls were frightened, they hid inside the restaurant's bathroom for several minutes.
Counts III and IV of the information were based on the following undisputed material facts: On December 20,1990, two girls, ages 9 and 10, were walking along a sidewalk when the appellant drove by, stuck out his tongue, and said, "Honey, let me have some pussy," or "Give me your pussy." The appellant circled back past the girls about three times. The girls then walked to a park where they would be around other people. The appellant then drove past the park.
We conclude that the undisputed facts relating to the first incident fail to establish a prima facie case against the appellant of attempting to commit the offense proscribed by section 800.04(1). Attempt re quires an overt act which is a direct movement toward commission of the offense, and which is more than mere preparation. State v. Coker, 452 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). While the appellant's request to the girls to expose themselves may have constituted an attempt to violate a different subsection of the statute, see Schmitt v. State, 590 So.2d 404 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1572, 118 L.Ed.2d 216 (1992), it did not evince the specific intent to handle, fondle, or assault the girls required under subsection (1). Likewise, the appellant's act of following the girls to the restaurant, whether considered alone or together with the appellant's earlier remark, does not constitute a direct movement toward a specific purpose of handling, fondling, or assaulting the girls.
We conclude, however, that the nature of the appellant's language and conduct in the second incident does fall within the proscription of section 800.04(1). The appellant's command to the girls to "give [him] some pussy" demonstrates the specific desire to handle or fondle the girls, and the appellant's act of repeatedly driving back by the girls can properly be viewed as a direct act in furtherance of this specific intent. .
Accordingly, the appellant's convictions on Counts I and II of the information are reversed, his convictions on Counts III and IV are affirmed, and this cause is remanded for resentencing.
ERVIN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part with written opinions.