Sendelweck v. State
101 So. 3d 734
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Sendelweck was convicted in municipal court of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest after a police encounter over dogs entering a Brandon garage.
- The disorderly-conduct charge was later dismissed on de novo review due to a defective charging affidavit that focused on speech rather than conduct.
- The circuit court ruled that the disorderly-conduct charge could be dismissed while upholding the resisting-arrest conviction based on the evidence at trial.
- Evidence at trial showed Sergeant Parfait warned Sendelweck to calm down; Sendelweck yelled, refused to comply, and allegedly pulled away from handcuffs when arrested.
- Testimony differed on verbal abuse and the officer’s conduct, but the trial court found the arrest for disorderly conduct lawful and the resisting-arrest conduct proven.
- Appellate review affirmed the circuit court, concluding a lawful arrest existed and the resisting-arrest conviction was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct? | Sendelweck argues no breach of peace or crime occurred. | Parfait’s testimony showed threatening, combative conduct justifying arrest. | Yes; sufficient evidence supported a lawful arrest for disorderly conduct. |
| Does dismissal of the disorderly-conduct charge affect the resisting-arrest conviction? | Dismissal should negate the basis for resisting arrest. | Resisting arrest stands on separate conduct and proof at trial. | No; dismissal does not negate resisting-arrest conviction. |
| Did the record support a finding of resisting arrest beyond reasonable doubt? | Evidence did not show obstruction or force in arrest. | Sendelweck pulled away, obstructing and prompting pepper spray; sufficient to convict. | Yes; the record supports resisting arrest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brendle v. City of Houston, 759 So.2d 1274 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (First Amendment limits on profanity; fighting words not present here)
- Jones v. State, 798 So.2d 1241 (Miss.2001) (determine probable cause by assessing threat of breach of peace)
- Odem v. State, 881 So.2d 940 (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (analyze conduct and demeanor to assess probable cause)
- Chambers v. State, 973 So.2d 266 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (resisting arrest involves obstruction or force during lawful arrest)
- Holloman v. State, 820 So.2d 52 (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing probable cause)
- Doolie v. State, 856 So.2d 669 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (appellate review of bench trial findings requires substantial evidence)
- Amerson v. State, 648 So.2d 58 (Miss.1994) (standard for reviewing trial court factual findings in non-jury trials)