Blanchard v. State, 92-02365
| Decision Date | 08 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-02365,92-02365 |
| Citation | 634 So.2d 1118 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D807 William Clinton BLANCHARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Karen K. Purdy, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant, William Clinton Blanchard, appeals his conviction for false imprisonment. 1 Blanchard was charged with false imprisonment and with attempted sexual battery. A nonjury trial was held. After the state presented its case, the trial judge granted a motion for judgment of acquittal as to the attempted sexual battery charge and reduced the charge to simple battery. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge found Blanchard guilty of both false imprisonment and battery. Blanchard claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove the crime of false imprisonment. We affirm the conviction for false imprisonment and reverse the conviction for battery.
At trial, the victim testified that while she was working the late night shift at the Presto Food Store, Blanchard entered the store and walked to the chip aisle next to where she was filling the napkin and condiment display. She heard him pick up a bag of potato chips and in a split second he turned around, threw the chips on the counter where she was standing, grabbed her and slung her against the counter and grabbed her hand and put it on his penis. Blanchard's non-erect penis was exposed when he put her hand on it. When asked how long her hand was on his penis, she stated: When Blanchard got distracted by car lights in the parking lot, the victim punched him in the mouth with her other hand. He turned around and ran out the door.
Blanchard concedes that the evidence presented supports the conviction for battery. With respect to the false imprisonment charge, Blanchard argues that the state must show restraint which is not slight, inconsequential or merely incidental to the battery. While recognizing that the restraint need not be substantial, 2 Blanchard argues that there is no evidence of restraint, and that even if there was some restraint, it was merely incidental to the battery and, therefore, cannot stand as a separate conviction, citing Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963 (Fla.1983). 3
In this case, the victim was slung against a counter, held by her hand and forced to hold Blanchard's penis. She regained her freedom of movement by punching Blanchard in the mouth. On these facts, it is reasonable to conclude that some amount of force was used to hold or restrain her against her will. See Jane v. State, 362 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. State
...See also Watson v. State, 655 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); McConn v. State, 648 So.2d 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Blanchard v. State, 634 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Appellant's conviction for forgery under section 831.01, Florida Statutes (1993), is supported by proof of the separate act......
-
McConn v. State
...the charge of lewd and lascivious conduct a category two lesser included offense of the crime of sexual activity. Cf. Blanchard v. State, 634 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA) (battery may be a category two lesser included offense of false imprisonment), review denied, 641 So.2d 1344 Under section 7......
-
Guinto v. State, 95-3692
...two lesser included offense of the offense of sexual battery with the use or threat of force. Appellant cites to Blanchard v. State, 634 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), in which the court held that convictions for both battery and false imprisonment could not stand as battery was a permissib......
-
Heretick v. State
...We affirm appellant's conviction of false imprisonment but reverse his conviction for battery on the authority of Blanchard v. State, 634 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 641 So.2d 1344 (Fla.1994), and Chaeld v. State, 599 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA We find no error in the denial of the......