Wallace v. State

• Decision Date: 10 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. 90,287.,90,287.
• Citation: 724 So.2d 1176
• Parties: Charlie WALLACE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

724 So.2d 1176

Charlie WALLACE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 90,287.

Supreme Court of Florida.

December 10, 1998.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and David McPherrin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for Petitioner. Robert Butterworth, Attorney General, Celia A. Terenzio, Acting Bureau Chief, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Myra J. Fried, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Wallace v. State, 689 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), which certified conflict with the decision in Pierce v. State, 681 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), on the issue of whether section 843.01, Florida Statutes (1993), permits more than one conviction predicated on a single incident during which a person resists multiple officers attempting to effect a single arrest. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed herein, we hold that only one conviction may be obtained. We approve the reasoning of Pierce and quash the decision in Wallace.

Wallace was charged with and convicted of numerous offenses including two counts of resisting an officer with violence under section 843.01, Florida Statutes (1993), arising out of an altercation between Wallace and two police officers who were called to Wallace's home by his sister.¹ When the first officer on the scene saw Wallace strike his sister with a rake, the officer ordered Wallace to drop the rake and informed him he was under arrest. Wallace resisted and threatened to strike the officer with the rake, and when the officer pulled his nightstick, Wallace unsuccessfully attempted to punch him. When a second officer attempted to handcuff Wallace, Wallace again resisted, pulled away, and punched the officer in the face. Wallace thereafter continued to resist the officers and stopped only when he noticed his hand was bleeding.

Wallace was arrested and charged with numerous offenses, including multiple counts of battery on a law enforcement officer, aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, aggravated battery, and two counts of resisting an officer with violence under section 843.01.² Upon conviction,³ Wallace appealed, contending that section 843.01 permitted only one charge and conviction for resisting the officers in their attempt to arrest him, regardless of whether more than one officer was involved, since the evidence showed continuous resistance of the attempted arrest in a single incident. The Fourth District rejected his appeal, holding that section 843.01 allows separate convictions for each individual officer actually present and resisted at the scene. Wallace, 689 So.2d at 1163. In so holding, however, the district court recognized and certified conflict with Pierce v. State, 681 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Id.

PIERCE

Only petitioner's convictions for two counts of resisting an officer in the execution of a legal duty under section 843.01 are at issue in this proceeding. In a situation similar to that presented here, the defendant in Pierce was charged with three counts of resisting an officer predicated on one episode of an attempted arrest during which he resisted three officers. 681 So.2d at 873. The First District held that only one conviction was permitted in connection with this single episode, relying upon this Court's decision in State v. Watts, 462 So.2d 813 (Fla.1985). Pierce, 681 So.2d at 874. Citing Watts, the court in Pierce held that because section 843.01 prohibits resisting "any" officer, as opposed to "an" officer, "and the three counts ... [were] predicated on one incident during which the appellant resisted or opposed three officers, only one conviction [was] permitted." Id.

GRAPPIN AND WATTS⁴

We find that this conflict may be resolved in accordance with our decisions in Grappin v. State, 450 So.2d 480 (Fla.1984), and Watts. In Grappin the defendant was convicted of five separate acts of larceny for stealing five firearms during the commission of a burglary. Focusing on the language of the statute at issue, particularly the word "a" in prefacing the word "firearm," we held that use of the term "`a firearm' ... clearly shows that the legislature intended to make each firearm a separate unit of prosecution." 450 So.2d at 482. In so holding, we recognized that federal courts have held that use of the word "any," on the other hand, renders the meaning of the statute ambiguous, and in that instance, "several firearms taken at the same time must be treated as a single offense." Id. (citing United States v. Rosenbarger, 536 F.2d 715 (6th Cir.1976), and United States v. Kinsley, 518 F.2d 665 (8th Cir.1975)). Thus, we acknowledged a critical difference between the use of the words "a" and "any" in construing the legislative intent of a statute.

In Watts we followed the reasoning and analysis in Grappin. In Watts, the defendant was charged with two counts of possessing two prison-made knives at the same time. The statute made it unlawful for any person to "introduce" or "possess" while upon the grounds of any state correctional institution "any firearm or weapon of any kind." Watts, 462 So.2d at 814 (quoting § 944.47, Fla. Stat. (1981)). In interpreting the language of the statute, we recognized the ambiguity in the legislature's use of the language "any firearm or weapon." Id. In accordance with our decision in Grappin, we concluded that such ambiguity required construction of the statute most favorably for the accused and that such a favorable construction prohibited Watts from being convicted of multiple offenses for the possession of two prison-made knives.⁵Id. The meaning of Watts is clear; although Watts possessed two knives, he was subject to only one conviction under an ambiguous statute, absent a clearer statement of legislative intent to the contrary.

SIMILAR FEDERAL STATUTE

The United States Supreme Court has reached a result similar to that reached in Pierce and consistent with our opinions in Grappin and Watts, in construing the federal statutory equivalent to the statute in this case, 18 U.S.C.A. § 111 (Supp.1998) (formerly 18 U.S.C. § 254 (1946) (assault or interference with a federal officer)). In Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S. 169, 79 S.Ct. 209, 3 L.Ed.2d 199 (1958), the defendant was convicted of two counts of assault upon federal officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 254 (1940) when he fired a shotgun at two officers while they were seated in their automobile. Similar to the statute at issue in the instant case, section 254 provided: "`Whoever shall forcibly resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any person ... [if he is a federal officer designated in § 253] while engaged in the performance of his official duties, or shall assault him on account of the performance of his official duties, shall be ... imprisoned not more than three years.....'" 358 U.S. at 171 n. 1, 79 S.Ct. 209 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 254 (1940)) (emphasis supplied). In concluding that only one conviction under section 254 was permitted, the Court reasoned that to permit as many offenses as there are federal officers affected "would produce incongruous results" because the cumulative punishment imposed would be disproportionate to the actual crime committed. 358 U.S. at 177, 79 S.Ct. 209.

In analyzing the intent of the statute, the Court found it susceptible to two equally plausible constructions with regard to the purpose the statute was intended to achieve: preventing hindrance of the government and protection of individual officers. Id. at 173, 79 S.Ct. 209. In support of the view that the statute's primary purpose was to prevent the hindrance of government duty, and not to prevent assault upon federal officers, the court stated:⁶

[Section] 254 makes it unlawful not only to assault federal officers engaged on official duty but also forcibly to resist, oppose, impede, intimidate or interfere with such officers. Clearly one may resist, oppose, or impede the officers or interfere with the performance of their duties without placing them in personal danger. Such a congressional aim would, of course, be served by considering the act of hindrance as the unit of prosecution without regard to the number of federal officers affected by the act. For example, the locking of the door of a building to prevent the entry of officers intending to arrest a person within would be an act of hindrance denounced by the statute. We cannot find clearly from the statute, even when read in the light of its legislative history, that the Congress intended that the person locking the door might commit as many crimes as there are officers denied entry. And if we cannot find this meaning in the supposed case, we cannot find that Congress intended that a single act of assault affecting two officers constitutes two offenses under the statute.

Id. at 176, 79 S.Ct. 209. Because the meaning of the statute could not be discerned from the wording of the statute or its legislative history, the Court construed the statute in favor of the accused individual:

"(W)hen choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite. We should not derive criminal outlawry from some ambiguous implication." United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 221-222, 73 S.Ct. 227, 97 L.Ed. 260. And in Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 83, 75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905, the Court expressed this policy as follows: "When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity." This policy of lenity means that the Court will not interpret a federal criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what Congress inte

...