Case Name: Noel TAYLOR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2014-07-09
Citations: 141 So. 3d 748
Docket Number: No. 3D12-3314
Parties: Noel TAYLOR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before WELLS, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 141
Pages: 748–749

Head Matter:
Noel TAYLOR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D12-3314.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 9, 2014.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler and Maria E. Laure-do, Assistant Public Defenders, and Jeffrey Paul Desousa, Certified Legal Intern, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Brent J. Kelleher, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before WELLS, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

Opinion:
WELLS, Judge.
Noel Taylor appeals from his convictions and sentences for indecent exposure and assault. We find no merit in the arguments raised with regard to his conviction and sentence on the assault charge and therefore affirm the conviction and sentence on that count without discussion. However, we reverse Taylor's conviction and sentence for indecent exposure because the evidence adduced below, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, was insufficient to demonstrate that Taylor exposed or exhibited his sexual organs in a place intended or designed to be frequented or resorted to by the public. See § 800.03, Fla. Stat. (2012) (in pertinent part, making it "unlawful to expose or exhibit one's sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises"); Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Criminal) 11.9 (defining a "public place" as "any place intended or designed to be frequented or resorted to by the public"); Basulto-Rodriguez v. State, 95 So.3d 403, 406 n. 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ("We review de novo the trial court's denial of a motion for JOA, to determine solely whether the evidence is legally sufficient. In reviewing the denial of the motion, we consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the State as the non-moving party.") (internal citations omitted.); A.S.F. v. State, 70 So.3d 754, 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (same).
Accordingly, Taylor's convictions and sentences are affirmed in part and reversed in part.