Carlisle v. State
105 So. 3d 625
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Dennis J. Carlisle appeals his convictions for attempted lewd and lascivious battery and traveling to meet a minor for sexual conduct, and this court affirms.
- Carlisle engaged in sexually explicit email and text exchanges with a person he believed was a 13-year-old boy and arranged to meet the boy and his father for sexual activity.
- Carlisle drove to the boy’s home carrying lubricant intended for use in the sexual encounter.
- Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, these acts were sufficient to prove a prima facie case of attempted lewd and lascivious battery.
- Carlisle also challenged the trial court’s handling of restraints, arguing for an evidentiary hearing on the necessity of shackling; the sheriff had ordered shackling, but Bello required a hearing when timely objected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted lewd and lascivious battery | State contends evidence showed substantial steps toward consummation. | Carlisle contends the evidence does not establish a prima facie case for attempted battery. | Sufficient evidence supported the charge. |
| Necessity of an evidentiary hearing on restraints | State argues no pre-hearing was required and restraints were justified by security needs. | Carlisle argues Bello requires a pre-trial hearing when restraint necessity is questioned. | Trial court erred by not granting a hearing; however, the error was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bello v. State, 547 So.2d 914 (Fla. 1989) (pre-shackle necessity hearing required when timely requested)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error standard)
- Diaz v. State, 513 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1987) (court must balance safety and presumption of innocence)
- Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (presumption of innocence and evidence evaluation at trial)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1986) (restraints permissible only for essential state interests)
- Jackson v. State, 698 So.2d 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (courts should not blindly defer to security officials on restraints)
- McCoy v. State, 503 So.2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (restraints require necessity showing)
- U.S. v. Talley, 315 Fed.Appx. 134 (11th Cir. 2008) (case-specific and individualized assessment for restraints)
- Bist v. State, 35 So.3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (evidence of preparatory acts suffices for attempted battery)