State v. Davis, 94-926
| Decision Date | 31 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-926,94-926 |
| Citation | 652 So.2d 942 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D799 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Henry L. DAVIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ann M. Childs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellant.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Lyle Hitchens, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
The state appeals from the trial court's order granting Davis' motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) in a criminal case. Davis was charged with resisting an officer with violence to his person in violation of section 843.01, Florida Statutes (1993). The state argues the trial court erred in granting Davis' motion to dismiss because Davis' untraversed motion, plus the evidence presented by Officer Reston at the hearing on the motion, established a prima facie case of resisting an officer with violence. We agree and reverse.
Davis' motion to dismiss established the following undisputed facts:
a. Deputy Reston approached Davis to talk to him, without any cause to arrest him.
b. Davis indicated he did not want to talk with the Deputy.
c. The Deputy persisted and placed Davis under arrest for obstruction of justice.
d. While the Deputy attempted to place Davis in custody, Davis resisted by pulling and twisting, trying to break free.
e. Davis did not strike the Deputy and no injury grew out of the incident, other than bite wounds suffered by Davis when two police dogs were released on him.
f. Davis was not charged with obstruction of justice.
g. Deputy Reston was not injured.
Since the state did not file a traverse, the factual matters in Davis' motion are deemed admitted. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d). However, rule 3.190(d) contemplates that a hearing may be held "to receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision on the motion." The only witness at the hearing was Deputy Reston. He did not contradict the factual allegations contained in Davis' motion. But he did supplement the factual allegations with the assertion that Davis jumped off of the patrol car and swung at him with his fists. Reston ducked and was not hit.
Pursuant to section 843.01, Florida Statutes, (1993), a defendant may violate it "by offering or doing violence" to a deputy or police officer. Here, Davis' act of swinging his fist at Reston and missing him could constitute "offering" to do violence.
The trial court reasoned that the charge should be dismissed because Davis' arrest by Deputy Reston was admittedly unlawful because it lacked sufficient grounds. However, Davis was not privileged to use force or offer to do so, against a law enforcement officer, even if the arrest were illegal. See State v. Giddens, 633 So.2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Bradford v. State, 567 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) rev. denied, 577 So.2d 1325 (Fla.1991); Wallace v. State, 557 So.2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); State v. Gilchrist, 458 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
In this case, the undisputed facts were that Davis pulled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. U.S.A, Case No. 8:08-cr-348-T-17TGB
...Wright v. State, 681 So. 2d 852, 853 (Fla. 5th DCA 852 1996) (defendant kicked at and attempted to strike officers); State v. Davis, 652 So. 2d 942, 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (defendant "pulled and struggled to free himself, and struck at the Deputy with his fist"). For those offenses that in......
-
Dyer v. Lee
...an element of the offense of resisting arrest with violence. State v. Espinosa, 686 So.2d 1345, 1347 (Fla.1996); State v. Davis, 652 So.2d 942, 943 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1995); Delaney v. State, 489 So.2d 891, 892-93 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986). Therefore, a successful § 1983 claim against an arrest......
-
State v. Espinosa, 87633
...3 in pari materia with section 843.01 to eliminate that element as to the offense of resisting arrest with violence. State v. Davis, 652 So.2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Benjamin; Johnson; Lowery v. State, 356 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.510(b) 5......
-
Funderburk v. Snyder
...violence. Unlike its counterpart, § 843.01 does not require proof of a valid underlying arrest. See Espinosa, 686 So.2d at 1347; Davis, 652 So.2d at 942. Because § 843.01 applies even to false and illegal arrests, the Court finds no contradiction between Plaintiff's past no-contest plea and......