Rudisel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rudisel v. State

861 So. 2d 98, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19070, 2003 WL 22945700

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-4452

StatusPublished

This text of 861 So. 2d 98 (Rudisel 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

Rudisel v. State, 861 So. 2d 98, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19070, 2003 WL 22945700 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, which was based on the theory that the mattress and bed sheet in his prison cell were not “contents” of the cell within the meaning of the arson statute, section 806.01(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). See, e.g., Higgins v. State, 565 So.2d 698 (Fla.1990) (affirming a first-degree felony arson conviction where the defendant set fire to the mattress in his prison cell even though there was no evidence of damage to the building). Compare State v. Tomblin, 400 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (reversing dismissal of an arson charge involving the defendant setting fire to clothing he had piled in the center of his jail cell, noting that if the defendant had set fire to his mattress, there would be no question the mattress would be considered “contents” of the cell).

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and PADOVANO, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, which was based on the theory that the mattress and bed sheet in his prison cell were not “contents” of the cell within the meaning of the arson statute, section 806.01(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). See, e.g., Higgins v. State, 565 So.2d 698 (Fla.1990) (affirming a first-degree felony arson conviction where the defendant set fire to the mattress in his prison cell even though there was no evidence of damage to the building). Compare State v. Tomblin, 400 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (reversing dismissal of an arson charge involving the defendant setting fire to clothing he had piled in the center of his jail cell, noting that if the defendant had set fire to his mattress, there would be no question the mattress would be considered “contents” of the cell).

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and PADOVANO, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 So. 2d 98, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19070, 2003 WL 22945700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudisel-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack