Davila v. State, 75 So. 3d 192

Davila was convicted of kidnapping his own child, along with multiple other offenses, after his son RD was allegedly confined and abused between February and July 2000.
The Third District held that, generally, a parent cannot be convicted of kidnapping his own child but recognized an exception for unlawful ulterior purposes forbidden by the statute.
The Third District in Davila v. State affirmed the conviction, but certified conflict with Muniz v. State, which held a parent cannot be charged with kidnapping his own child absent a custody-deprivation order.
The Florida Supreme Court granted jurisdiction to resolve whether section 787.01 allows a parent to be convicted of kidnapping his own child under proper circumstances.
The Court analyzed the plain language of section 787.01(l)(a) and the supplemental provision (l)(b), applying de novo statutory construction to determine legislative intent.
The Court held that the statute’s plain language does not exempt a parent from liability; thus a parent can be convicted of kidnapping his own child under certain circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 787.01(l)(b) exempts a parent from kidnapping liability	Davila: parent cannot be convicted absent custody deprivation.	Muniz: absence of custody order precludes conviction for parent as kidnapper.	No exemption; parent can be convicted
Whether subsection (l)(b) provides the exclusive method to prove kidnapping of a child under 13	Davila: (l)(b) is the sole proof that restoration of will occurs when parent is involved.	Muniz: (l)(b) is the exclusive method of proving lack of will.	Not exclusive; other proof methods available
Does the plain language of 787.01 permit kidnapping convictions of a parent’s own child under proper circumstances	Davila: statute allows conviction when elements are met.	Muniz: the statute does not criminalize confinement by a parent.	Plain language supports conviction

Johnson v. State, 637 So.2d 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (parental kidnapping generally not permitted absent exception)
Lafleur v. State, 661 So.2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (exception for ulterior unlawful purpose under kidnapping statute)
Muniz v. State, 764 So.2d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (hold that absent court order, parent cannot be convicted of kidnapping own child)
Koile v. State, 934 So.2d 1226 (Fla.2006) (statutory construction principles; interpret statutes in light of entire text)
St. Mary's Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe, 769 So.2d 961 (Fla.2000) (contextual approach to statutory interpretation)
Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803 (Fla.2008) (rule of lenity as canon of last resort)