Paul v. State
112 So. 3d 1188
Fla.2013Background
- Paul was convicted under section 790.19 (shooting into an occupied vehicle) and sentenced as a PRR under section 775.082(9)(a)1.o (catch-all forcible felony).
- The Fourth District certified conflict with Crapps v. State (First District) on whether this offense necessarily involves force or violence to qualify as a forcible felony.
- The Fourth District held that shooting into an occupied vehicle necessarily involves the use or threat of physical force against an individual and is a forcible felony under the PRR catch-all.
- Crapps had held that throwing a deadly missile into an occupied vehicle did not qualify for PRR sentencing, creating the conflict now before this Court.
- The Court applied Heams v. State’s statutory- elements approach, focusing on the elements of section 790.19 rather than case-specific facts.
- The Court concluded the offenses under 790.19 are distinct for vehicles versus buildings, and that shooting into an occupied vehicle requires presence of an individual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 790.19(2001) qualify as a forcible felony under PRR catch-all? | Paul contends it does not; Crapps agrees. | Crapps argues no necessary force element for vehicle offense. | Yes; it qualifies as a forcible felony. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hearns, 961 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2007) (only statutory elements matter for forcible felony analysis)
- Crapps v. State, 968 So.2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (shooting into an occupied vehicle not necessarily a PRR offense)
- Hudson v. State, 800 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (buildings; force element depends on occupancy)
- Peterson Paul v. State, 958 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (building-based analysis; distinguishable from vehicle offense)
- Thomas v. State, 50 So. 954 (Fla. 1909) (presence of occupant essential to offense under earlier statute)