138 So. 3d 1098
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Molina Perez and three others burglarized an occupied home; the victim was beaten with a baseball bat and a gun.
- Days later, four law-enforcement officers in an unmarked/"not a law enforcement-type" pickup arrived at a house where Molina Perez and another suspect might be present.
- When officers arrived, Molina Perez and the other man ran from the back door; Molina Perez stopped in the yard while the other climbed a fence and later returned voluntarily.
- No testimony established whether officers were in uniform or what, if anything, they verbally commanded when the men fled; the State conceded it did not prove what officers said.
- Molina Perez was tried and convicted of burglary with a battery, aggravated battery, and resisting an officer without violence; he moved for judgment of acquittal on resisting but the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal the court reversed the resisting conviction for insufficient evidence, affirmed the burglary-with-battery and aggravated-battery convictions, and rejected Molina Perez’s double-jeopardy challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for resisting an officer without violence | State: orders to stop were given; flight plus stopping supports conviction | Molina Perez: no evidence he heard any command; flight alone insufficient | Reversed — State failed to prove an order to stop or that Molina knew of officers' intent to detain |
| Whether flight alone can support resisting/obstruction conviction | State: circumstantial facts (he stopped in yard) permit inference of command | Molina Perez: burden on State to prove command or awareness; cannot assume a command | Held for Molina Perez — flight without proof of command or knowledge is insufficient |
| Double jeopardy challenge to burglary-with-battery + aggravated battery convictions | Molina Perez: convictions punish same conduct, violating double jeopardy | State: precedent allows both convictions arising from same episode | Rejected — court follows existing authority permitting both convictions |
| Standard of review for judgment of acquittal | State: denial should be upheld if any competent substantial evidence | Molina Perez: apply de novo review; evidence insufficient | Court applied de novo standard and found insufficient evidence for resisting conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridgeway v. State, 128 So.3d 935 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (standard for reviewing judgment of acquittal)
- Lukaszewski v. State, 111 So.3d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (consider evidence and inferences in light most favorable to the State)
- C.E.L. v. State, 24 So.3d 1181 (Fla. 2009) (elements for resisting/obstruction without violence; flight alone insufficient)
- O.B. v. State, 36 So.3d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (reversing resisting conviction where no evidence appellant heard order to stop)
- S.B. v. State, 31 So.3d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (no command to stop, State failed to prove element)
- Clark v. State, 976 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reversing resisting conviction where deputy did not tell appellant to stop)
- State v. Garcia, 126 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (distinguishing case where officers clearly announced authority and ordered defendant to stop)
- Billiot v. State, 711 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (rejecting double-jeopardy challenge to burglary-with-battery plus aggravated battery)
- Irizarry v. State, 905 So.2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (same)
- Reardon v. State, 763 So.2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (en banc) (no statutory or constitutional bar to both convictions)
- Washington v. State, 752 So.2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (same)