Ramirez v. State
133 So. 3d 648
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Ramirez was sentenced to consecutive life terms after a jury found him guilty of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation of a four-year-old girl, A.Z.
- Ramirez raises six issues on appeal, but two are meritorious: admissibility of his confession under section 92.565 and potential double jeopardy from dual convictions.
- The State presented corpus delicti evidence via A.Z.’s trial testimony and the CPT interview, establishing the crime independently of Ramirez’s confession.
- A.Z. testified that a man touched her vaginal area; the CPT interview video corroborated the touching, while Ramirez’s confession followed an interview with a deputy.
- Salinas testified Ramirez was the only adult male in the house the day of the incident, though she did not identify him as the perpetrator at trial.
- The trial court admitted the confession; the jury was allegedly misinstructed about counts, but the court ultimately convicted Ramirez on both counts and imposed consecutive life sentences; the court granted a judgment with a sexual predator designation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| admissibility of confession under 92.565 | Ramirez; 92.565 required trustworthiness testing if corpus delicti not proven | State contends corpus delicti proven; 92.565 not triggered | 97: 92.565 not implicated; confession properly admitted |
| double jeopardy for dual convictions | Ramirez argues two convictions violate double jeopardy for same act; same touching/penetration | State concedes issue aligns with Smith and Berlin; conflict with Roughton | Dual convictions barred; lewd/molestation reversed; remanded to vacate |
Key Cases Cited
- Franqui v. State, 699 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 1997) (corpus delicti proof required before admission of confession)
- Hobbs v. State, 999 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 2008) (section 92.565 applicability to sexual abuse cases)
- Bradley v. State, 918 So.2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (statutory exception to corpus delicti rule for sexual offenses)
- Tanzi v. State, 964 So.2d 106 (Fla. 2007) (corpus delicti may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Smith v. State, 41 So.3d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (double jeopardy when same act supports both sexual battery and lewd molestation)
- Berlin v. State, 72 So.3d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (double jeopardy violation for same act supporting both offenses)
- Roughton v. State, 92 So.3d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (conflict with Smith/Berlin acknowledged; different outcome based on elements)