STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ARNELL WAITS, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that the Faison test for determining whether confinement is incidental to other crimes does not apply to false imprisonment convictions, thereby reinstating the respondent's false imprisonment conviction that had been reversed by the District Court of Appeal.
The Faison test does not apply to false imprisonment convictions. Convicting the respondent of battery, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because the statutory elements of false imprisonment are distinct from those of battery and aggravated assault under the Blockburger test.
[1] A conviction for false imprisonment is not barred by the Faison test when the confinement is incidental to other offenses.
[2] The Faison test is not applicable to false imprisonment convictions.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In State v. Smith, 840 So. 2d 987 (Fla.2003), this Court held that the Faison test is not applicable to false imprisonment convictions.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that overrules the District Court's application of the Faison test to false imprisonment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArnell Waits was convicted by jury of aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment. The victim's confinement occurred in connection …
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 Statutory Elements Of Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, J.
We have for review Waits v. State, 795 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Chaeld v. State, 599 So. 2d 1362, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The respondent was convicted by a jury of aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment.
The district court reversed respondent’s conviction of false imprisonment because respondent’s confinement of the victim was incidental to the crimes of battery and aggravated assault and therefore did not meet the test announced by this Court in Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963, 965 (Fla. 1983).1 See Waits, 795 So. 2d at 239. In State v. Smith, 840 So. 2d 987 (Fla.2003), this Court held that the Faison test is not applicable to false imprisonment convictions.
Accordingly, we quash the district court’s reversal of the respondent’s false imprisonment conviction.2 We direct that this case be remanded to the trial court for resentencing based on the district court’s holding reducing the respondent’s aggravated battery conviction to simple battery.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ„ and HARDING, Senior Justice, concur. PARIENTE, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, C.J., and SHAW, Senior Justice, concur. . The district court also reduced the respondent's aggravated battery conviction to simple battery. The State did not appeal this holding.
. Convicting the respondent of battery, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. See U.S. Const, amend. V; art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. "The Double Jeopardy Clause in both the state and federal constitutions protects criminal defendants from multiple convictions and punishments for the same offense.” Gordon v. State, 780 So. 2d 17, 19 (Fla.2001).
Application of the test announced in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), codified in section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1997), reveals that the Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated because the statutory elements of false imprisonment are different from the elements of both battery and aggravated assault. Compare § 787.02, Fla. Stat. (1997), with §§ 784.021, -.03, Fla. Stat. (1997).
False imprisonment is a separate offense from aggravated battery and aggravated assault.
PARIENTE, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in State v. Smith, 840 So. 2d 987, 992 (Fla.2003). As I stated in Smith, the purpose of Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1983), is to ensure that the confinement crime is distinct from other criminal charges involving forcible felonies. In this case, the Fifth District concluded that “the five to ten minute fight in which Waits committed both a battery and a separate aggravated assault, did not involve a further confinement separate and apart from these two crimes.” Waits v. State, 795 So. 2d 237, 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Treating this conduct as false imprisonment makes almost every forcible crime also a false imprisonment, contrary to the principle of Faison.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and SHAW, Senior Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Essex v. State, 917 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…risonment convictions because the test was established for a particular element of the kidnapping statute that is not included in the false imprisonment statute.” State v. Smith, 840 So. 2d 987, 989-90 (Fla.2003) (emphasis added). In State v. Waits, 848 So. 2d 1030 (Fla.2003), the Florida Supreme Court relied on Smith to quash the fifth district’s reversal of the respondent’s false imprisonment conviction, again articulating that the Faison test is not applicable to false imprisonment convictions. See also San…
-
Gerald v. State, 132 So. 3d 891 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…which negates the critical element that elevates simple assault to aggravated assault. This is a true inconsistent verdict and is akin to the Fifth District’s opinion in Waits v. State, 795 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), reversed on other grounds, 848 So. 2d 1030 (Fla.2003). In Waits, the Fifth District reduced a conviction for aggravated battery, which was based only upon the use of a deadly weapon with no evidence of great bodily harm, to simple battery, because the jury specifically found that the defend…
-
Brenton Bryan v. State, 160 So. 3d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Smith v. State, 840 So. 2d 987, 989-90 (Fla.2003) (holding that test [*477] set forth in Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1983), applies to kidnapping but not to false imprisonment); State v. Waits, 848 So. 2d 1030, 1031 (Fla.2003); Sanders v. State, 905 So. 2d 271, 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). GROSS, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932)
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983)
- Bryon Gordon v. State, 780 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2001)
- State v. Smith, 840 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 2003)
- Chaeld v. State, 599 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Arnell Waits v. State, 795 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)