Comer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Comer v. State

652 So. 2d 1296, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4409, 1995 WL 238771

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 26, 1995

DocketNo. 94-853

StatusPublished

This text of 652 So. 2d 1296 (Comer v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Comer v. State, 652 So. 2d 1296, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4409, 1995 WL 238771 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant challenges his convictions for throwing a [1297]*1297deadly missile at an occupied vehicle and resisting arrest without violence. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the former charge. See, e.g., Zachary v. State, 269 So.2d 669 (Fla.1972); Wilton v. State, 455 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Livolsi v. State, 451 So.2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). However, as the state correctly concedes, the instruction given to the jury regarding the offense of resisting arrest without violence constituted error which compels reversal. E.g., Wimbley v. State, 567 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Dion v. State, 564 So.2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction for throwing a deadly missile at an occupied vehicle; reverse the conviction for resisting arrest without violence; and remand for a new trial on the latter charge.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant challenges his convictions for throwing a [1297]*1297deadly missile at an occupied vehicle and resisting arrest without violence. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the former charge. See, e.g., Zachary v. State, 269 So.2d 669 (Fla.1972); Wilton v. State, 455 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Livolsi v. State, 451 So.2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). However, as the state correctly concedes, the instruction given to the jury regarding the offense of resisting arrest without violence constituted error which compels reversal. E.g., Wimbley v. State, 567 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Dion v. State, 564 So.2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction for throwing a deadly missile at an occupied vehicle; reverse the conviction for resisting arrest without violence; and remand for a new trial on the latter charge.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

652 So. 2d 1296, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4409, 1995 WL 238771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comer-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack