BURTRUM KNIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the appellant's convictions for resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. The court found that naming multiple officers in the charging information was not a reversible error, either because it aligned with precedent on resisting arrest or because the defect was waived by failing to raise it in the lower court.
The court held that naming multiple officers in the resisting arrest count was not error, as continuous violent resistance against multiple officers constitutes a single offense. The court also held that the defect in naming multiple victims in the battery count was waived by the appellant's failure to move to dismiss the information in the lower court.
“a defendant’s continuous violent resistance of multiple officers constitutes only one instance of resisting.”
Establishes the legal principle for resisting arrest with multiple officers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. The charging information named two officers as…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Defects cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Convicted of resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer, appellant argues for the first time on appeal that the convictions were based upon a fundamentally flawed information, which named two officer victims in each count, thus creating due process problems. We disagree and affirm.
With respect to the count for resisting arrest, in Wallace v. State, 724 So. 2d 1176, 1181 (Fla.1998), the supreme court held that a defendant’s continuous violent resistance of multiple officers constitutes only one instance of resisting.
Therefore, naming more than one officer in that count was not in error, as appellant could be convicted of only one count of resisting arising from his confrontation with either or both officers. It would have been error to charge him with resisting each officer individually. With respect to the count for battery on a law enforcement officer, which also named two officer victims, appellant failed to move to dismiss the information based upon that defect and therefore waived the defect. See Fountain v. State, 623 So. 2d 572, 573-74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (noting that information charging kidnapping of “Joyce Lewis or James Henderson” was flawed, but holding error was waived by failing to move to dismiss information).
Despite appellant’s suggestion, the error is not fundamental. Unlike Bashans v. State, 388 So. 2d 1303, 1304-05 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), relied on by appellant, where the information alleged two distinct crimes carrying two different punishments, appellant’s battery on either officer would carry identical punishment. By naming both victims in the same count, appellant could be convicted of, and sentenced for, only one count of battery on a police officer. The error in naming multiple victims has not exposed him to greater punishment but actually reduced his exposure. In addition, he faces no danger of a successive prosecution for battery on either officer.
Affirmed.
SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnett v. State, 121 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…the defendant in preparing his defense. Saldana, 980 So. 2d at 1221-22. The State’s opportunity to pursue alternative theories of the commission of a crime includes situations in which the information alleges more than one victim. Knight v. State, 819 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (a defendant’s continuous violent resistance of multiple officers constitutes only one instance of resisting arrest; naming more than one officer in that count was not in error, as appellant could be convicted of only one count o…
-
Provow v. State, 14 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…rbarisms which was sired by indolence and dammed by indifference.... I am unable to divine how such senseless jargon becomes [*1136] current. The coiner of it certainly had no appreciation for terse and concise law English”). . See Knight v. State, 819 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (so explaining Wallace). . We agree entirely with Judge Gerber’s concurring opinion and urge the adoption of the changes to the Standard Jury Instruction he has proposed.…
-
Hoswell v. State, 45 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…offense the jury found was proven. Appellant was clearly on notice of the allegations against him. He suffered no prejudice from the charging of the elements of the permissive lesser within the same count as the greater offense. See Knight v. State, 819 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that any error in an information charging battery on a LEO which listed two officers in one count was waived by failure to object and defendant was not prejudiced). Through the course of his postconviction filings, Appe…
Authorities Cited
- Castro v. State, 389 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- Bashans v. State, 388 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Ozzievelt Fountain v. State, 623 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)