Background
Luke Oliver Davis, who was twenty years old at the time of the offense, pleaded no contest to one count of lewd and lascivious battery under section 800.04(4), Florida Statutes, for an offense committed against a thirteen-year-old victim. In exchange for the plea, the State dismissed two additional counts of the same charge and a count of interfering with the custody of a minor, with sentencing left to the court’s sole discretion.
At sentencing, Davis sought a downward departure, youthful offender sentencing, and exemption from the adult-on-minor scoresheet multiplier under section 921.0024(1)(b). He presented expert testimony that a neurocognitive developmental disability caused him to function at a younger social and emotional age and that his capacity to appreciate the criminal nature of his conduct was substantially impaired. The sentencing court rejected all three requests and imposed a 150-month prison sentence — the lowest permissible sentence under Davis’s criminal punishment code scoresheet as calculated with the multiplier applied.
After sentencing, Davis moved to disqualify the sentencing judge, filed a notice of appeal, and subsequently obtained reassignment to a successor judge. He then filed two motions to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b): the first arguing he was denied his right to allocution, and the second challenging application of the adult-on-minor multiplier. Both were denied, and this appeal followed.
The Court’s Holding
The First DCA affirmed on all grounds. On the claim that the sentencing court erred by not announcing reasons for declining a downward departure or youthful offender sentence, the court held the issue was unpreserved — Davis never raised it at sentencing — and would fail on the merits in any event. Florida law requires a written explanation only when a court imposes a departure sentence or youthful offender sentence, not when it declines to do so. Absent a misapprehension of its authority, the trial court was free to impose the guidelines sentence without explanation.
On the adult-on-minor multiplier challenge, the court adopted the reasoning of the Fourth DCA in Millien v. State, 336 So. 3d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), holding that section 921.0024(1)(b) applies to lewd or lascivious battery under section 800.04(4) as an independently listed offense. The court rejected Davis’s argument that the multiplier is limited to cases involving kidnapping or false imprisonment, explaining that the semicolons in the statute create separate categories of qualifying offenses, and that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.704(d)(24) confirms section 800.04 is a standalone qualifying offense. The holding was also found consistent with the court’s prior decision in Hayes v. State, 272 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
The court further held that Davis’s allocution claim was an unpreserved sentencing-process error that did not rise to fundamental error, because Davis and his counsel were permitted to present submissions and evidence relevant to sentencing. Finally, the court affirmed that the successor judge correctly concluded he lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the sentence after the notice of appeal was filed.
Key Takeaways
- Florida’s adult-on-minor sentencing multiplier under section 921.0024(1)(b) applies to lewd or lascivious battery under section 800.04(4) as an independently listed offense — not only to sexual offenses committed in the course of a kidnapping or false imprisonment.
- A sentencing court is not required to state reasons for declining to impose a downward departure or youthful offender sentence; the explanation requirement is triggered only when such a sentence is actually imposed.
- An unpreserved allocution claim is a sentencing-process error reviewable on appeal only for fundamental error; allowing defense counsel to present evidence and argument at sentencing satisfies the defendant’s right of allocution.
- Filing a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to reconsider the sentence, even when a successor judge has been assigned.
Why It Matters
This decision resolves a statutory-interpretation dispute about the reach of Florida’s adult-on-minor sentencing multiplier, aligning the First DCA with the Fourth DCA’s Millien decision. Defendants convicted of lewd or lascivious battery cannot argue that the 2x multiplier is unavailable simply because no kidnapping or false imprisonment was charged; the multiplier applies by virtue of the section 800.04 conviction alone, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.704(d)(24) forecloses any ambiguity on that point.
The case also highlights a procedural development: a June 1, 2026 amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140 now permits defendants who entered guilty or no contest pleas to appeal both sentencing errors and sentencing-process errors, provided they are preserved. The rule change broadens appellate access after pleas, but as Davis illustrates, the preservation requirement remains an independent barrier that defendants must satisfy at the trial level.