Sherrita Javon Northern v. State of Florida

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2025-0295 Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CT-007631-A-O _____________________________

SHERRITA JAVON NORTHERN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the County Court for Orange County. Amanda S. Bova, Judge.

July 10, 2026

NARDELLA, J.

Sherrita J. Northern (“Northern”) appeals her conviction for driving under the

influence in violation of section 316.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2023). Under

Florida’s DUI statute, the legislature defined the offense to encompass not only

persons who are actively driving a vehicle while impaired, but also persons who are

in “actual physical control” of a vehicle. Northern contends that the trial court

should have granted her motion for judgment of acquittal because there was

insufficient evidence at trial to establish that she was in actual physical control of

her vehicle because the evidence showed that her key was not in the vehicle’s

ignition. Evidence was presented at trial that Northern’s key was in the ignition. Thus,

while couched as a sufficiency of the evidence argument, Northern really challenges

the weight of the evidence adduced at trial, which is not the focus of a motion for

judgment of acquittal. On review of a motion for judgment of acquittal, it is the

sufficiency of the evidence that is at issue and the question posed is “whether the

evidence presented is legally adequate to permit a conviction.” Robbins v. State, 250

So. 3d 722, 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

In contrast, Northern’s argument on appeal—that better evidence proves her

key was not in the ignition while she sat in her vehicle—would require this Court to

reweigh the evidence, and such a course of action is improper. See Guibord v. Ford

by & through Chopin, 338 So. 3d 928, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (“Granting appellate

relief . . . as requested by Appellant would involve reweighing evidence and

accepting what Appellant contends is the ‘better’ evidence. Such a course of action

is improper for an appellate court.” (citing Michael Anthony Co. v. Palm Springs

Townhomes, 174 So. 3d 428, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). We therefore affirm as to

the only argument made by Northern. In doing so, we note that while Northern

disputes the evidence, she makes no argument, either below or on appeal, as to the

proper meaning of “actual physical control” of a vehicle. State v. Washington, 403

So. 3d 465, 470 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (explaining that without any

authoritative interpretation by the Florida Supreme Court or our own district, we

undertake our interpretive work according to first principles, which requires that

2 statutes be interpreted according to the plain meaning of their text, looking to all the

textual and structural clues that bear on the meaning of a disputed text and using the

traditional interpretive canons for guidance where helpful.). Therefore, our decision

in this case should not be taken to express a view as to the correct interpretation of

this portion of the statute. Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. for

Ameriquest Mortg. Sec. Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-

R8, No. 51 6D2023-1482, 2026 WL 785140, *12 (Fla. 6th DCA Mar. 20, 2026)

(Mize, J., concurring) (“If it is not already clear, parties and their counsel litigating

in courts within the Sixth District should vigilantly watch for issues on which our

sister courts have erred and which we can correct… On appeal in this court, that

argument can then be raised as a basis for reversal and decided. When the issue is

properly brought before us, we will always endeavor to decide the issue correctly

under the law, with due respect to our sister courts but never deference.”).

AFFIRMED.

BROWNLEE, J., concurs. SMITH, J., concurs in result only.

Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kurt T. Koehler, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED