Legal Document: ROOSEVELT CARROLL V. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

On September 12, 2022 a (suppl) by Roosevelt Carroll was filed involving a dispute between Roosevelt Carroll, and for HABEAS CORPUS in the District Court of Volusia County.

Preview
PROVIDED T,0 TOMOM
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
ON PIS-112 -
FOR MAILING BY (16 C.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT pF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
.
-
• •

ROOSEVELTEARROLL47

Petitioner

Vs, Case No.2022-31374-CICI
(-)
-4 .==
RICKY D. DIXON, SECRETARY, 1.•••1
r •••1
• r-
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ETC c-)m
CD-70
cp
•;,x
C, -4 CD
Respondent. CI < -11 1
titC ,
X7s
CA

• tO
• • •

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY • CD_
e6-6'464de
COMES NOW, the -9eten :t.; Roosevelt Carroll, Pro Se, submits as 'sup▪ plemental

authority the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in State of Florida, v. Gary Dewayne

Hardley, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1788 (attached). This decision is submitted as authority in

connection with the Defendant's argument.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been placed in the

hands of institutional staff for forwarding by First Class U.S. Mail to: Lance Eric Neff, General

Counsel Florida Department of Corrections, 501 S. Calhoun Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399;

on this 5 — day of October, 2022

RespectfpllyjSubmitted,

Roosevelt Carro e#069359
Tomoka Correctional Institution
3950 Tiger Bay Road
Daytona Beach, Florida 32124
• • .

.: Headnotes and indexes are copyrighted and may not be duplicated by photocopying; printing,. ...
. publishers.
. or ether means withQl!t the express pernifsio,n,.of.,th . .: .„, .,i, 1;
:i8:0
4 351-0917 i tli ,:okr.si.. 7
• 47 Fla. L. Weekly. D1,788 ,. 1. S.:,
,. 11 ,TRICT ,,i.,R.,.TS
a..,40,,U
}s, _ ,r41,C iiatty,
.:: ist 0 :mmt,pal",..
FAPPEAL iiiion.4O::
- -" " - ..,,,,,.:,,,,4
..„,,,,,„,...:::::',...;•. ; (9i":.a.tt„,-2 04me-- -,:'.? 9
"kW-'.Zaltt G9V
''''' -' :. -- • .ith-—Anilhilie
st gat* wit
':
l'-'t't's'villIntit
.''''S'nb-iillta
-.21 te t ciiiiireitT4 0)° :.iltt il*-! °t ht-"."-.- - that !anent- ,4-arvictith -
, -.;;., -,:. 7,0yquestions
' of fact, the credibility of wgnesses; or. ew-thi nimir iron . d thili ..
siip:P07;i by rational
" a..": .. bass),
". 'the. . . Ag:ts .
u. . ..
Appelhint .: mjurypenefrationpomts would notpassedisti*
.")._.
..eirkleitee-
, The trial eine'. •established_thirt
. - - --..,-,
' ..-Wsalacing life_inprison, and *Otis.,defense counsel's . it would apply only * eases.Of heteroseX4iii — ' 'the State Old; .
' .: ..., .
i' was sound and the Only vinhle.anntegzan light nf the Over- - lenges that ruling. , • ,,
elMing eVidenogefgat. .
:Thus; we affirm the trial coutt's thorough and thoughtful order. Hatdley urges affirmance 'and claims tintOliCtini injury points,
.(BRAIREY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.) . , which include penetationpoints, cannot bins-eased when there is no
* * * -victim. In his-vi**4 because the jury acquitted him of sexual beam,
there was :no finding that the sex was nonconsensual, so there is no
Criminallaw—Incest—Sentencing Guidelines—Storesbeet—Vietim victim. The State Seeks reversal based ona specificstatuto4 provision
injury points—Trial court erred by denying state's request to assess it argues required thescoring of penetration points. .
penetration points to defendant's sentencing guidelines scoreshest— We generally reviewa trial court's decision to impose victim injury
AceordingttiplainlinguageasectiOn 921;0021(7), se xualpenetradon points for an abuse of discretion. Sims. v. Stale,9913 So. 2d 494, 504
&WS trust beserried for defendant'sineestconvittion, regardless of (Fhi. 2008). In cases likethis, hoWever, wheretheissue presented isit
whither' victimnirgagedin incest vohintairily and boutd potentially be pure question of law involving statutory inteipretation, the standard
charged as a perpetrator, because. incest is..an offense involving sexual ofrevieviis de novo. See id.
contitetthat hie1udOsexUalpenetrallrin. flit Which no expreas exception
-. Flesida's . Criminal
. Punishment Code provides that "a digitized
eetiri hnproperlyhaied its ruling on constitutional sentencingscoresheet must be prepared for every defendant who is
chins that neither Partyhadinkieri sentenCed for a f.elopy offense."§921.0024(7), Fla. Stet This imifoim
STATE CFFLORIDA,Apktiot v. GARY DEWAYNll HARD . LEY, Appellee. 1st sc,oresheet„located in. welkin 921.0024, Florida Statutes, guides the
District Case No. 1D19-1515. August 24, 2022.On apPeal from the!Micah Coat for calculation of Sentencing points "tri.determine the permissible range .
Eseembia County. Jeffi*Borni,fudge. ninny+ Ashley moody, A' ttorney denend,
Virginia Chi:stalks:as' ,Aisistaat Attorney Geoemal,Thllabassee,far Appellaatiason for the seii;e0e that the pun mayimpose." § 921.0024(3).
Cromey, Cromeytaw. P.A.,Pethacola, for Appellee. , -An .entite Section Of the worksheet addresses "Victim Injury." Id.
(NORDBY, J.) A juryfotind Gary Dewayne Harcileyguiky of incest § 921.0024(1)(a). Under this heading, the Moresheet itemizes
with a 25-year-old female relative. At sentencing, the State sought to multiple types of injury snd.assigns a specific.imOunt of sentencing
add sexual penetration points to Hardley's sentencing guidelines points to each category. kineng that list is "Sexual Penetration,"
scruesheet Thetrial court deniedthe*quest and sentenced Haidley which wires in st.80.ppints. • ..
*flinty days fa notinty jail and foriyeiglit nitmths offorobation, The The ligialatiireliakeirpresslY defined "Victim initiry" in section
SiistedOwippeills that sentence and challenges thetrial coast's faihue 921.0021(7), FloikOhnineh:
to asseigthe penetration points, Because we conclude the trial court (a) "Victim,injtiry.7,theans the physical injury or, Oath _suffered by it
erred, we vacate Hardley's sentence and remand the case to the trial •- *S0U as ;it,,ilirect::,resalt ef-the, piiminy,pffense,- anyadditiOnal
count for reSentencing. offense; for.,WiriCk an .Offender is convicted alto whichTis 'pending
bell* the entut kr:sentencing attfietimeof the priniaryoffenie.
I. . . •
The State charged Hare ley with (1) sexual battery upon the 25- The statute goes on tri expressly address offenses 'involving sexual
penetration they must" be scored: •
year-old relative, and (2) incest for having sexual intercourse with her.
Thejury found Hindley guilty of incestbutdeclinedto findhim guilty (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) and (d)„ .
of sexual battery. For both counts, however, the jury's verdict form 1. lithe conviction is foran offense involving sexual contact that
included the specific finding that Hardley's penis had penetrated the includes sexual penetration,the smite penetratibn must be stoned in
• acciadance with thesentencing points provided underS. for
woman's vagina. evidence of any
seinial penetration; regardleis of whether there is
At sentencing, the State requested the addition of 80 sexual
physical injury.
limitation points to the.victim injury portion of Hardley's criminal
punishment code scoreaheet .under sections 7)(b) and
If the victim of an offense involving sexual contact suffers any
921.0024, Florida Statutes (2018): Adding these points would have physical injury as a direct result of the primary offense or any
raised the *west peimissilde prison sentence to 46.5 months. After additional offense committed by the offenderiesulting in conviction,
hearing arguinents from both sides, the trial court declined to assess such physical injury must he scored separately and in addition to the
thepenetration points, assessing only 10 points fnr the incest convic- points scored for the sexual contact or the sexual penetration.
dna (a level2 offense). The trial court sentenced Hardley to thirty days (c) The sentence points provided under s: 921.0024 for sexual
inuounty jail and forty-eight months of probation. contact or sexuapenetraticin may not be assessed for a violation of s.
*on after sentencing, the trial court issued a written order 94435(3)(b)2.
detailing its reason for denying the State's request to assess victim (d) If the conviction is for the offense described in s. 872.06, the
injury. penetration points. Then*court noted that it bad `.`heard the . sentence points provided under s. 921.0024 for sexual contact or
altneCnsethattliejury did, and tit] reached thesame concluaion as the sexual penetration may not be assessed.
in:br Iltere was a shortage of evidenceio supporttlieposition that the § 921.021(7), Fla, Stat.
latest was involuntary." In the trial court's view, applying victim We tintetwn observations aboutthese provisions. First, the statute
nrY penetration points would violate theEqual Protection.Clause.

geports of all aphdons include the full text as filed. Cases ost final until time expires to file rebeMing petition and, if riled, determined.
A

Headnotes and indees.'are copyrighted and nig alit be duplicated by photocopying, printing,
or other means willing theetErOs orti*Pi!blishers.. 1-IM351-0917
bisnatttaukTroPAYDiji.EAL 47Fie. L. Weekly D1789
•. „
.""ifratrar . the kg~elatutealans eitdivitins to Oche& aradial
StifOrati t RbeideredfOr"vidtim raj Undersection. er,4tionStkal. Or "victimless." 'did not iniinfo'»
921.0021(71lict#Mit4p Orititiced fOr en Offense that direcOyeausecr dePtitra forinecif,IiiiWaVer, and wevilltiotindiCia* add `r
• iPhySidal.injuty,iiiijOaralincluditig death:Anystichinjuiyis scored j -A brief word cintiiitrialcotiit'srearaning:Thettialciduktiaiedit
- • on a diratiiiiitudE447Aporidafor death, ditivn.to 4 points for slight -rationale on conatirationarclainis that no party had raised. ItsltdOld
pftYsidatlinjW* 1)(a); FIa Stitt. By centred, and not have done We'kethis Opportunity to reiterate theldngitii0-':
. despfte its inclimirat underthe "victim injury" heading of the score- ins principle that it: is:the role of parties to raise Orauditiitidnal ' •
sheet, section 921.0021(7)requins that swiml penetration be scored .chalkingesagainst duly enacted laws, notjudges. See Storey. Done',"
separately, whether or not there is physical injury, In other words, 224 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 1969) ("This Couit has, on a number of
SentenCing.pciints. at-massed for sexual:penetration .stand apart from occasions, held that it. is not only unnecessary, but improper for e
vie* injury points assessed for physid.alinjurrto avidlim, . Omit.to pass uOinthedonstirationality ofan act,*conslitidionality
; Second, fottexualpenetratienpoints,the statutecontains two clear of Which is not challenged; that Coiiits.are pot to°braider it question
exceptions. Paragraph (c) expressly precludes the assessment of ofconstitutionality ivhichhas hot been aisedby the pleadings
penetration poi forsexualmisdonductbetween a occrections officer MOit.y.Corkan,117. So.s2d 408, 409 (Fla: 1960) ("Statutes comet°
and an inmate that dries not involvesexual battery. See §.944.35(b)2., usdlothed With apiesdnintion ofmtlidity. Rig notipaitOfthejailicial
Fla. Stitt. ("Any employeeofthe department ora private coffectionai yespoWbility, to Undeztaketoin*ilitlite them*esti theWtica tt.the
facility its defined his: 944.710 whipegages iiisei.dialraiscondratt cause *se the qUeslicm and assault the statarabecause cif organic
with *nate nr offender sigiOttOddif.'t,h;014,0 9ifiltql.f weaknesses,"). On appeal, Hardley has not presented any argument
• cozOktft*iVitknitenOnitting the oballti.trigitt the validity ofthe statutes*issue,aitcl We decline°reach
affyiriy Ofthethirddegree... 04.6004.e 00.1e a conatibitional issue not pressed by the parties.
frSintliandes of sexualabase,, . Sie1872.06(2), ".,
HI.
Pia;'Sgt. ("A persOivhd ,
!PAM,'Orate irOdi; dr fiieist js ah "Offense involving seine'contact that includes sex*
iiiiiiirAsegrasslyabuses dead lradfdliMmits afelony ofthe penetration!' under section 921=1(7), Florida Statutes. Because it
seikind:eiegree falls under neither express exception set out in that statute, the trial
• Tiuningio the Crinte it issu incest section 826.04, Florida court erred by not assessing sexual penetration points as Hardley's
Statutes, provides: sentencing. We accordingly vacate Hardley's sentence and retnand
Whoever IradWingly litanies orhas sexual intercourse with a person the easel°the.trial court for *sentencing. •
to when] he or the is-related by lineal consanguinity, or a brother, VACATED and REMANDED forresentencing, (ROBERTS and
• sister,iracle; nepltekbritieeticommitsinCest,Oichconstinues TANENBAUM, Jj., concur.) '
a felony ofthethirddegree . . "Same' intercourse" is thepenetmtion
* *' *
.of the female sex organ by the-male -sex organ, however slight;
emission of semen is not required. Abordens--Injunctions--Temporary--Irraparable harm-4,. ppeals
§ •Siat. • .. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al, Appellants, v. PLANNED PAIENfilOOD“
The•State argues that the plain language of section 921.0021(7) SOUTHWESTAND CENTRALFLORIDA, eta., Appellees..1st District. Case.No.
requires the assessment of sexual penetration points. As Hardley's ID22-2034. August 24,2022.Onappealfrcan the CilcuitCourt forLeon County.John
C. Cooper,Judge. Counsel: Ashley Moody,Attomey General,
conviction is for an offense. involving sexual COntact that -includes Assistant Attorney Generd,101111 Maid,
sexual penetration, the points l'nuist"be scored. PfPnly Attorney cleoeral, Nalal*P-
Cbristmas,Asnistant Attorney Delimit Jtuniin tirAttomeykletAgat
Hardley.countitisthat thevictim injurystatute requires there to be TallabasnaellinntYPiarleaWhirsicar,P*Orer
a victim. Underhisreading, the trialcourt could not assessany victim Soliellnr, TallabaSsen, for. Appellants. )ordlin ante ripe,.
:14..Pra_liOrtiar
injury poi* because the incest, consisted of consensual sexual Liberty Inatome, Washington, D.C., for Amiens Wail* . iiif)crlY.,tharinlie;
Christopher!yid's, .Speto Liw,LLC,Qtariettoi, SontliCirglit.4ina Chad Wilk,
intercourse between adultii, Asaresult;there was no victim, and thus Tampa, for Amici Cadiz Florida Pregotmcy Cant:akin Flippo* of Appellants.
no basis for victim injary points. Hardley supportsthispointbynoting Benjamin James Stevenspn, ACLU 1Poundatic' vs of Florida, Pensacola; Daniel Boaz
that, under section 826.04, Florida Statutes, both. parties to incest Tilley, ACLUFoundation ofFlorida, Mimi; NicholaSL'iVaken, ACLUFamdatinn
could liccharged as petpetnnois of the-crime. He thus relies heavily ofFlotida,ThllabasSee;IminiferDalvg,WhitrieyWbitz, inidJuhannaZscalas,A01-U
Foundation of New York, NAV York, .Nelv Yolk Mum' Kern and Caroline
•on the classic characterization of incest between consenting adults as Sacerdote, Center for ReproduCtive Rights,.New.York, New, Yost Tasty John*,
"victimless crime." 'ewer8cBlockLLP, Washington, DC.; ShohaPillay and April .0derberg, leaner
Blitthatpoint does notrendersexual penetration points inapplica- frineolriXit ChieelloAlinoiagerni*Sandniall?PlagedllgestjhearlYederarion.Of
ble here: The State did not pursue. charges against Hardley'S female . Adierkni, NO/ Yak Near Ynrk, foiAppeltees.
relatiVe;inifead,:the State charged Hasp* not only with incest, bin [Prior order at 47 Fla. L. Weekly D15.72e]
also *Zia! battery. And the jury. convicted Hard* of incest .a (B.L. THOMAS, J.) On July 21, -2022, the Court "direct[ecn the
criminal Offense "involving sexual contact that includes 'sexual parties within fifteen days to provideimy furtherbriefmg°rewrap*
penetration.* for our -consideration, before the court disposes of the ewe* of the
Weagate with theState;the language of section 921.0021(7) could non-final order grantinithetemporary injunction." State V,114kOted
not be . clearer. - Sexual penetration points "must be scored". for ParenthoOdofSk &Cent Fla., 47Fla. L WeeklyD1572e,202.2.WL
Hardley's incest conviction. That the Legislature included two 2865900, at *4 (Fla. 1st DCA July 21, 2022). ThipartieShave*lea
express exceptions to the mandatory searing of penetration points to provide further briefing or argunient: Accodlingli,the' tion*al
confirms this reading of the statute. Paragraphs (c) and (d) show that radergranting the temporaryinjunciiiin isievi3rsedasiAppeliteiteigdd

Reports of all opinions inehide the full text 1114. Cases net final add time eidres to file rehearing petition end, Med, determined.
,_
g SE'Ll e?
OP-L4:A&74C-k.i,

. ..S.C.:VET. :20:•=n' PM 5 L•
/a`,1 aillee-c4A4 (7_174-7 4F‘7< :Crilf
7r5- 6( /i/2yE./ /dCe q/

32/.zy

ireiz,Y/0/4'vees/to
0 1. ,Z7‘6) r
MAILED FROM
A STATE CORRKTIOllA /2i/eA(//7 8 .7,2(- 3
INETITti11011

3272i- 1604343
. )111161 I 1I I 1111111 I_ 411i II l_l
_1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for ROOSEVELT CARROLL V. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Preview

Case Info

Parties