M. M., 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.
M.M., a juvenile, was found guilty of resisting an officer without violence when she interfered with a school resource officer's detention of a suspected trespasser by refusing to leave despite repeated requests and engaging in profane and threatening behavior. The appellate court affirmed the guilt finding but struck the $50 cost assessment that was erroneously imposed when adjudication was withheld.
The court affirmed the guilt finding because there was sufficient, competent evidence that M.M.'s refusal to leave upon repeated request and her continued profane and threatening behavior interfered with the officer's lawful performance of duty. However, the court struck the $50 cost because it cannot be imposed against juveniles when adjudication is withheld.
[1] A person commits resisting an officer without violence when their refusal to leave and continued profane and threatening behavior interferes with an officer's performance…
[2] A cost assessed pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1993), cannot be imposed against juveniles when adjudication is withheld.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“There was sufficient, competent evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's refusal to leave, upon repeated request, and continued profane and threatening behavior interfered with the officer's performance of his lawful duties, and, therefore, constituted a violation of the statute.”
Establishes the court's holding that the guilt finding was supported by adequate evidence of interference with lawful police duties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA school resource officer at Pinellas Park High School was detaining a suspected trespasser on school grounds when M.M. approached from behind, yellin…
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 Withheld Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
M.M. challenges the trial court’s order finding her guilty and withholding adjudication for resisting an officer without violence in violation of section 843.02, Florida Statutes (1993). She also contends, and the state concedes, that the $50.00 cost assessed pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1993), was erroneously imposed because adjudication was withheld. There was sufficient, competent evidence to support the trial judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s refusal to leave, upon repeated request, and continued profane and threatening behavior interfered with the officer’s performance of his lawful duties, and, therefore, constituted a violation of the statute. Thus, we affirm the finding of guilt, but strike the $50.00 cost.
The school resource officer at Pinellas Park High School arrested the appellant during regular school hours while he was attempting to detain an individual suspected of trespass on school grounds. The school guidance counselor had given the officer the trespasser’s description. The officer had apprehended and struggled with the trespasser and was attempting to gain control over him in order to search for any weapons when the appellant, yelling profanities, approached him from the rear and told him to get away from the trespasser. The officer and another witness testified that they thought the appellant was going to jump on the officer’s back from the way she came at him. The officer told the appellant that she needed to back off, get away and leave him alone; he was taking .care of an investigation and she should not interfere. She did not comply and continued to approach as the officer put out his hand to further indicate she should stop. A bystander became involved, and the situation threatened to escalate. The campus monitor then approached and assisted in controlling the trespasser. When the officer turned to the appellant and advised her that she was under arrest, she began to struggle with him.
This case is similar to Wilkerson v. State, 556 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 564 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1990), where the deputies were in the process of arresting several individuals when the defendant emerged from a crowd, yelling profanities. When the deputies requested at least twice that she leave the area because she was interfering with their efforts to make the arrests, she refused to leave and continued to curse and yell at them. Other bystanders began to become involved. We find the situation in D.G. v. State, 661 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), distinguishable because there, the officers were not engaged in the arrest or detention of any individual; they were merely investigating an automobile burglary near the defendant’s home. When D.G. emerged from his home screaming profanities, the officers “arrested D.G. for disorderly conduct because he refused to stop yelling after several warnings.” 661 So. 2d at 76. Here, as in Wilkerson, the appellant interfered with the officer’s ongoing efforts to arrest or detain a suspect. We, accordingly, affirm.
The $50.00 cost pursuant to section 960.20 cannot be imposed against juveniles when adjudication is withheld. J.A. v. State, 633 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We note that the legislature has since amended section 960.20 to permit imposition of this cost effective July 1, 1994. Ch. 94-342, § 14, Laws of Fla. However, the incident in question occurred on November 3, 1993, and the cost was assessed on March 3,1994.
Affirmed in part and $50.00 cost stricken.
THREADGILL, C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
H.A.P. v. State, 834 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…for example, blocking officers' access to a crime scene or contaminating evidence with his presence, his presence could be deemed a violation of section 842.03. . The only other case cited by the majority in support of its opinion is M.M. v. State, 674 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), which is factually distinguishable. In M.M., "[t]he officer and another witness testified that they thought the appellant was going to jump on the officer's back from the way she came at him. The officer told the appellant that s…1 / 2
-
L.K.B. v. State, 697 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…’s conduct physically impedes an officer in the performance of legal duties. See Wilkerson v. State, 556 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA) rev. denied, 564 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1990)(defendant refused to leave area where arrests were being made); M.M. v. State, 674 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (despite warning defendant continued to approach officer who was struggling with suspected trespasser). Convictions also have been upheld where persons lawfully arrested give a false name. See Rumph v. State, 544 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.…
-
D.A.W. v. State, 945 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…n this case did not establish that D.A.W. had committed a crime. D.A.W. remained at a distance and did not approach the officer or physically threaten the officer or arres-tee, which distinguishes this case from the facts presented in M.M. v. State, 674 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (affirming order withholding adjudication for resisting an officer without violence where defendant approached officer from behind, leading officer and a witness to believe the defendant was going to jump on the officer). Further,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- D.G. v. State, 661 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Vernette Wilkerson v. State, 556 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- J.A. v. State, 633 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)