Perry v. State
57 So. 3d 910
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant seeks review of a life sentence for kidnapping following a beating and confinement of the victim.
- September 22, 2008: at a friend’s house, Appellant attacked the victim after an on-and-off joking exchange.
- Appellant hit the victim with a chair, dragged her by the hair into another room, continued beating until unconscious, then dragged her outside.
- The beating lasted at least seven minutes; injuries included bruised ribs, two broken toes, and a concussion.
- Appellant was charged with attempted second-degree murder and kidnapping under Fla. Stat. § 787.01(l)(a)3 (2008); convicted on both counts, life sentence on kidnapping, concurrent 15-year term on attempted murder.
- On appeal, the issue is whether the movement/confinement constituted kidnapping under § 787.01(l)(a)3; trial court denial of judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confinement under § 787.01(l)(a)3 required independent significance | Appellant argues movement was incidental to beating and not independently significant. | State contends confinement here is independent and substantial under § 787.01(l)(a)3 given the seven-minute assault and dragging. | Confinement established; movement had independent significance and supports kidnapping conviction. |
| Whether the movement during beating suffices for confinement under § 787.01(l)(a)3 | Movement during beating was not independent of the intent to terrorize and thus not confinement. | Movement was sufficiently substantial across rooms and outdoors to constitute confinement. | Movement during beating, including dragging between rooms and outside, satisfies confinement under § 787.01(l)(a)3. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963 (Fla. 1983) (defines confinement as independent from other crime for § 787.01(l)(a)2/3 when applicable)
- Conner v. State, 19 So.3d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (applies Faison-like test to § 787.01(l)(a)3; confinement must have independent significance)
- Lee v. State, 770 So.2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (affirmed kidnapping under § 787.01(l)(a)3 where victim dragged during attack)
- Melendez v. State, 51 So.3d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (affirmed confinement under § 787.01(l)(a)3 despite differing facts from Conner)
- Harkins v. State, 380 So.2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (cited regarding legislative intent and interpretation of kidnapping subparagraphs)