Court Opinion

ID: 9652881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:34:23.290165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:54.851142
License: Public Domain

GRIFFIN, J.,
concurring and concurring specially.
The trial court appeared to be uncertain about the double jeopardy issue in this case, which was understandable given the uncertain state of the law. Since this case was decided, however, the Florida Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Meshell, 2 So.3d 132 (Fla.2009), which may inform the trial court’s decision on remand.
In this case, count one charged capital sexual battery, alleging that defendant’s penis had union with the victim’s vagina. Defendant was found guilty of attempted sexual battery, which means that defendant did some act in furtherance of the charged offense but failed to complete it. See § 777.04(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). Count three, which charged lewd or lascivious molestation of the same victim, alleged that defendant intentionally touched her genitals or the clothing covering her genitals. Unlike count one, count three did not *270allege that defendant used his penis, but alleged a lewd touching.