KENTON ANTHONY BLAKE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Blake appeals his probation revocation based on three charges: disorderly intoxication, resisting arrest with violence, and escape. The court held that while the disorderly intoxication charge failed because Blake's conduct did not meet statutory requirements, the conviction for resisting arrest with violence could stand independently despite the illegal arrest, and remanded for reconsideration of sentencing.
The court held that Blake's behavior did not constitute disorderly intoxication under Florida Statute Section 856.011(1). However, the conviction for resisting arrest with violence may stand independently even though the underlying arrest was illegal. The case was remanded to allow the trial court to redetermine probation revocation and sentencing based solely on the resisting arrest charge.
[1] A conviction for resisting arrest with violence may stand even if the underlying arrest was illegal.
[2] A person's actions of talking loudly and flapping arms in the presence of law enforcement, while smelling of alcohol, do not necessarily constitute disorderly intoxicatio…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We agree that appellant's behavior did not amount to disorderly intoxication as described in Section 856.011(1), Florida Statutes, and discussed in State v. Holden, 299 So.2d 8 (Fla.1974) and T.L.M. v. State, 371 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).”
Establishes that the disorderly intoxication charge failed because Blake's conduct did not meet the statutory definition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputies responded to a call at a Burger Hut restaurant where Blake and a companion had caused concern. Blake initially denied being there, then admit…
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 Legality Of Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Having considered the appellant’s motion for rehearing, we grant the motion in part and withdraw the decision and opinion filed May 6, 1983, substituting the following decision and opinion in lieu thereof.
This is an appeal of probation revocation based on charges of disorderly intoxication, resisting arrest with violence, and escape, of which appellant was found guilty.
The charges resulted from an episode in which a waitress at a Burger Hut Restaurant called the sheriff’s department after appellant and a woman who was with him caused some confusion and concern at the restaurant. Deputies Frier and Wimberly investigated the call. They talked with appellant, who initially denied having been at the Burger Hut, but then admitted that he had been there. Upon being confronted, appellant, who was holding a beer can and smelled strongly of alcohol, began flapping his arms around and said he wanted to know why they were always picking on him. Deputy Frier said that he and Wim-berly were standing close to appellant and he could have hit them with his arms, therefore they arrested appellant based on “past history of Mr. Blake and the actions he was taking in [the officers’] presence.” There was also testimony that appellant was talking loudly, using profanity, and causing “sort of a little disturbance.” Following the arrest, as he was being patted down for weapons, appellant broke away from the officers and ran off. Frier chased and eventually caught appellant and the two struggled before Frier was able to handcuff appellant.
Appellant argues that the arrest for disorderly intoxication was illegal, therefore all three charges upon which his probation was revoked must fail. He contends his actions in talking loudly and flapping his arms did not violate the disorderly intoxication statute.
We agree that appellant’s behavior did not amount to disorderly intoxication as described in Section 856.011(1), Florida Statutes, and discussed in State v. Holden, 299 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1974) and T.L.M. v. State, 371 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). However, we do not agree that all of the charges must fail along with the charge of disorderly intoxication. In Harbin v. State, 358 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), this court reversed a disorderly conduct conviction, but upheld the conviction for resisting arrest with violence, citing Section 776.-051(1), Florida Statutes, and State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1976) (footnote 2). A review of those authorities indicates that the finding that appellant was guilty of resisting arrest with violence may stand even though the arrest was illegal. See also Lowery v. State, 356 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). However, since we cannot be certain that the trial court would revoke appellant’s probation and impose the same sentence on the basis of the finding that he was guilty only of resisting arrest with violence, we remand this case to the lower court for a redetermination of these matters. See Watts v. State, 410 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Mordica v. State, 618 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…have revoked Mordica’s probation absent consideration of the battery of a law enforcement officer charge, we also remand for reconsideration of the revocation in light of only those matters alleged in the affidavit of violation. See Blake v. State, 433 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). REVERSED AND REMANDED. ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . Section 784.07, Florida Statutes (1989), provides in pertinent part: [*304] (2) Whenever any person is charged with knowingly committing an assault or battery upon a la…
-
K.Y.E. v. State, 557 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…viction for breach of the peace, we must also reverse the conviction for obstructing or opposing an officer without violence. While the illegality of the underlying arrest is no defense to resisting the arrest with force or violence, Blake v. State, 433 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), section 776.051, Florida Statutes (1989), the common law rule still remains that a person may lawfully resist an illegal arrest without using any force or violence. Smith v. State, 399 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Davis v. Sta…
-
Melecio v. State, 662 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…mand, the lower court is to reconsider the revocation of community control and the sentence imposed in light of the fact that only one violation of the conditions of community control is adequately shown by the record on appeal. See, Blake v. State, 433 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ, concur. . An amended affidavit of a violation of community control was thereafter filed alleging several more violations of the conditions of appellant's community control, but these amended charges were…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Saunders, 339 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1976)
- Lowery v. State, 356 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- State v. Holden, 299 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1974)
- T. L. M. v. State, 371 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Harbin v. State, 358 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Watts v. State, 410 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)