Ralph Monroe v. State of Florida, 191 So. 3d 395

Background

In May 2011 an eight‑year‑old student (T.J.) reported being touched in a school bathroom; he identified Monroe in a photo array and described digital anal penetration in a forensic interview. Monroe later gave an inculpatory statement.
The State charged Monroe with four counts: two counts (Counts I & II) alleging the offender was 18 or older (sexual battery and lewd and lascivious molestation of a child <12) and two corresponding counts alleging the offender was under 18 (lesser included offenses).
At trial the date/age issue (whether Monroe was 18 at the time) was central; T.J. could not reliably fix the date, and the State did not prove Monroe’s age beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury convicted Monroe of the greater offenses (Counts I & II), resulting in a mandatory life sentence without parole for the sexual battery count and a lengthy term on the molestation count.
Monroe failed to move for judgment of acquittal at trial on grounds of insufficient evidence of age; he appealed and the First DCA affirmed but certified the question whether preservation is required when the greater‑offense sentence would be unconstitutional as applied to the lesser offense.
The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question affirmatively but found trial counsel’s failure to move for judgment of acquittal amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel apparent on the face of the record and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether F.B. and Young permit appellate review of an unpreserved insufficiency claim when the State proved only a lesser included offense and the greater‑offense sentence would be unconstitutional as applied to the lesser offense	First DCA (and Monroe urged) — review should be allowed because sentencing disparity (mandatory life) produces constitutional consequences	State — preserve insufficiency claims; only narrow exceptions (death cases or complete failure to show any crime) permit unpreserved review	Court: No expansion of fundamental‑error exception; preservation required (affirmative answer to certified question meaning prior precedent controls)
Whether courts should adopt a federal "manifest miscarriage of justice"/plain‑error standard to review unpreserved sufficiency claims	Monroe urged adoption to permit reversal where upholding would be a manifest miscarriage of justice	State opposed adopting a nebulous federal standard; Court warned against lack of clear guidance	Court: Declined to adopt such an expansion; refused to enlarge exceptions to fundamental‑error doctrine
Whether trial counsel’s failure to move for judgment of acquittal constituted ineffective assistance of counsel apparent on the face of the record	Monroe argued counsel was ineffective for not preserving the insufficiency claim given the centrality of age and constitutional sentencing consequences	State could not justify counsel’s failures; appellate counsel and State conceded no plausible reason at argument	Court: Found counsel’s failure objectively unreasonable and prejudicial; recognized ineffective assistance on direct appeal and remanded for further proceedings

Key Cases Cited

F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2003) (preservation rule: insufficiency claims must ordinarily be preserved; only limited exceptions permit unpreserved review)
Young v. State, 141 So.3d 161 (Fla. 2013) (clarifies F.B.; unpreserved insufficiency review only when evidence shows no crime was committed)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders)
Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1981) (standard for appellate sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)