Rusaw v. StateRusaw v. State
The only significant question on this appeal is whether a person convicted of sexual battery under
Appellant was convicted of sexual battery under
(2) A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon, or injures the sexual organs of, a person 11 years of age or younger in an attempt to commit sexual battery upon said person commits a capital felony punishable as provided in
ss. 775.082 and921.141 . If the offender is under the age of 18, that person shall be guilty of a life felony, punishable as provided ins. 775.082 ,s. 775.083 , ors. 775.084 .
The court sentenced appellant to life imprisonment with the requirement that he serve at least twenty-five years before becoming eligible for parole.
Since appellant was eighteen years or older at the time the crime was committed, he had committed a capital felony punishable according to
(1) A person who has been convicted of a capital felony shall be punished by life imprisonment and shall be required to serve no less than 25 years before becoming eligible for parole unless the proceeding held to determine sentence according to the procedure set forth in
s. 921.141 results in findings by the court that such person shall be punished by death, and in the latter event such person shall be punished by death.
Notwithstanding, appellant argues that because the supreme court in Buford v. State, 403 So.2d 943 (Fla. 1981), held the death penalty for sexual battery unconstitutional, the commission of a sexual battery is no longer a capital felony. He points out that in Rowe v. State, 417 So.2d 981 (Fla. 1982), decided after Buford, the court said, “A capital offense is one that is punishable by death. In Florida, murder in the first degree is the only existing capital offense.” 417 So.2d at 982. Thus, he asserts that he can be sentenced for no more than a life felony which does not authorize the imposition of the twenty-five year minimum mandatory term in prison.
The case of Hogan v. State, 427 So.2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), supports appellant‘s position. There, as here, the defendant was charged with sexual battery by a person
Our sister court‘s analysis concerning the six-member jury was consistent with the opinion in Donaldson v. Sack, 265 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1972), in which the supreme court wrestled with the problems of how to treat first degree murder prosecutions after the death penalty had been held unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). We note, however, that the Donaldson opinion specifically preserved the sentencing under
We find no difficulty with a continuation of the sentencing for these former “capital offenses” under
§ 775.082(1) as automatically life imprisonment upon conviction, inasmuch as that is the only offense left in the statute... . The elimination of the death penalty from the statute does not of course destroy the entire statute. We have steadfastly ruled that the remaining consistent portions of statutes shall be held constitutional if there is any reasonable basis for doing so and of course this clearly exists in these circumstances.
Thus, we hold that even though sexual battery under
Our holding in this case is further buttressed by
(2) In the event the death penalty in a capital felony is held to be unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, the court having jurisdiction over a person previously sentenced to death for a capital felony shall cause such person to be brought before the court, and the court shall sentence such person to life imprisonment as provided in subsection (1).
Thus, it is apparent that the legislature intends for the penalties prescribed by
Our decision may not squarely conflict with the holding in Hogan because in that case there was never any intention to punish under
AFFIRMED.
HOBSON, Acting C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.