Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

320 So. 2d 426

Ray v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 15, 1975

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1975-10-15

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1976

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the attempted sexual battery for which the appellant was convicted was an essential element of the breaking and entering charge.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 331 So. 2d 316 - State v. Ray

Relies on Drayton v. State · 287 So. 2d 721 - Trousdale v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This is an appeal from judgments entered upon guilty pleas for sexual battery, attempted sexual battery and breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony, to wit: sexual battery, and after having entered making an assault upon a woman lawfully within the dwelling house. The appellant was sentenced to fifteen years for the sexual battery. He was given concurrent five year sentences for the other two offenses to run consecutive to the fifteen year sentence.

¶2The judgments are affirmed. The sexual battery was a different incident than those which formed the basis for the other two charges. However, the attempted sexual battery for which the appellant was convicted was an essential element of the breaking and entering charge. Therefore, the sentence for attempted sexual battery must be vacated as violating the single transaction rule. Drayton v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1975, 320 So.2d 23; Trousdale v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1974, 287 So.2d 721.

¶3BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

/320/so2d/426 · .json · Public domain