State v. Waits
Opinions
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.[1031]*10311983).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.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
848 So. 2d 1030 (State v. Waits) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.