AMY ARROYO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A motion for judgment of acquittal that challenges only one theory of liability under an interference with custody statute is insufficient to preserve appellate review of the conviction when the statute permits multiple alternative forms of conduct.
[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal that fails to challenge all elements or alternative theories of liability required by a statute does not preserve those issues for appe…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“a taking is not the only way in which a person may interfere with custody under the statute. Because Arroyo did not challenge the alternative conduct below, we are without option but to affirm her conviction.”
Court's explanation of why the appeal must fail despite the narrow scope of Arroyo's challenge
Amy Arroyo was charged with four counts of interfering with custody under Florida Statutes section 787.03. She appealed the denial of her motion for j…
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 Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2025-0165 Lower Tribunal No. 2024-CF-002096 _____________________________
AMY ARROYO, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Michelle O. Pincket, Judge.
December 23, 2025
WOZNIAK, J.
Amy Arroyo was charged with four counts of interfering with custody in violation of section 787.03, Florida Statutes (2024). She appeals the denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal, in which she argued only that her conduct did not amount to a taking as required under section 787.03. However, a taking is not the only way in which a person may interfere with custody under the statute. Because Arroyo did not challenge the alternative conduct below, we are without option but to affirm her conviction. See, e.g., Woods v. State, 733 So. 2d 980, 984–85 (Fla.
2
1999) (rejecting the appeal of the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal that failed to fully set forth “the specific grounds upon which the motion was based”); Pryor v. State, 48 So. 3d 159, 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (finding that a motion for judgment of acquittal that failed to challenge knowledge, an element of the charge of tampering with evidence, was insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal). Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to Arroyo to seek postconviction relief, if appropriate, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
AFFIRMED.
NARDELLA and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Woods v. State, 733 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1999)
- Pryor v. State, 48 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)