Paul v. State
129 So. 3d 1058
Fla.2013Background
- This case reviews whether shooting into an occupied vehicle under section 790.19 qualifies for PRR sentencing under the forcible felony catch-all in section 775.082(9)(a)1.o.
- The Fourth District held that the offense necessarily involves force against an individual and thus is a forcible felony, creating conflict with Crapps (First District).
- Paul was convicted under 790.19 for shooting into an occupied vehicle and sentenced under PRR’s 15-year minimum.
- Paul challenged the enhanced sentence via 3.850; the Fourth District summarily denied and affirmed, distinguishing the vehicle offense from building offenses.
- This Court granted jurisdiction to resolve whether the statutory elements of 790.19 render the offense a forcible felony under the Hearns framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 790.19 (shooting into an occupied vehicle) necessarily involves force against an individual | Paul: use of force not necessary since vehicle may be used without occupants | Crapps: offense may not require force; see building-related interpretations | Yes; the offense necessarily involves force against an individual under Hearns |
| Whether 790.19’s vehicle provision is a distinct offense that falls under the Hearns analysis for forcible felonies | Paul: vehicle offenses lack the necessary element tying to force | Paul: see conflict with Crapps; vehicle and building elements treated similarly | The vehicle offense is distinct and qualifies as a forcible felony; Crapps disapproved |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hearns, 961 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2007) (only statutory elements matter for forcible felony analysis)
- Hudson v. State, 800 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (building-focused reasonings cited in Crapps)
- Peterson Paul v. State, 958 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (building- vs vehicle-based distinctions discussed)
- Crapps v. State, 968 So.2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (held shooting into an occupied vehicle was not a qualifying PRR offense)
- Thomas v. State, 58 Fla. 120, 50 So. 954 (1909) (purposeful interpretation of 'used or occupied' in early statute)
- Hamilton v. State, 11 So. 523 (Fla. 1892) (historic interpretation of 'used or occupied' and risk to persons)
- State v. Burris, 875 So.2d 408 (Fla. 2004) (statutory interpretation; rule of lenity context)
- Marrero v. State, 71 So.3d 881 (Fla. 2011) (reference for plain-language interpretation principles)
- Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 2009) (articulates elements of shooting into an occupied vehicle under 790.19)