STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
REGINALD WELLS, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court approved a First District Court of Appeal decision vacating one of Reginald Wells' convictions for resisting arrest with violence, holding that an individual cannot be convicted of multiple counts of resisting arrest with violence based on the number of officers resisted during a single criminal incident.
An individual may not be convicted of multiple counts of resisting arrest with violence for resisting different officers during a single criminal incident. A defendant's continuous resistance to the ongoing attempt to effect arrest constitutes a single instance of obstruction under section 843.01, even if multiple officers were resisted.
[1] A person may not be convicted of multiple counts of resisting arrest with violence based on the number of police officers resisted during a single criminal incident.
[2] Continuous resistance to an ongoing attempt to effect an arrest constitutes a single instance of obstruction under section 843.01, Florida Statutes.
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“his [defendant's] continuous resistence to the ongoing attempt to effect his arrest constitutes a single instance of obstruction under section 843.01”
Establishes the core holding that a single episode of continuous resistance to arrest, regardless of the number of officers involved, constitutes one offense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReginald Wells was convicted of multiple counts of resisting an officer with violence during a single criminal episode involving resistance to multipl…
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 Resisting Arrest With Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Wells v. State, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2010, 731 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in Wallace v. State, 689 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), on the issue of whether an individual may be convicted of multiple counts of resisting arrest with violence based on the number of police officers resisted during the course of a single criminal incident. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We resolved this conflict in Wallace v. State, 724 So. 2d 1176 (Fla.1998), wherein we held that section 843.01, Florida Statutes (1993), which makes it unlawful for any person to resist with violence any officer in the execution of the officer’s legal duty, does not contemplate multiple convictions for each officer resisted during the course of a single criminal incident. See id. at 1181. In this regard, we stated: ‘While the defendant may have committed more than one offense in his altercation with the officers, including possibly multiple assaults or batteries, or both, on law enforcement officers as were separately charged here, we conclude that his [defendant’s] continuous resistence to the ongoing attempt to effect his arrest constitutes a single instance of obstruction under section 843.01.” Id. In so holding, we quashed the Fourth District’s decision in Wallace and approved the decision in Pierce v. State, 681 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that only one conviction may stand where defendant resisted three officers during course of single episode or incident). 724 So. 2d at 1181.
Here, the court below followed the reasoning in Pierce in vacating one of Wells’ convictions for resisting an officer with violence, the conduct for which was committed in connection with a single episode. See Wells, 22 Fla. L. Weekly at D2010, 731 So. 2d 680. In accordance with our decision in Wallace, therefore, we approve the decision below.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. HARDING, C.J., dissents with an opinion. .
WELLS, J., dissents.
HARDING, C.J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Wallace v. State, 724 So. 2d 1176, 1181 (Fla.1998) (Harding, C.J., dissenting).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Castro v. State, 389 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- Tammi Jones v. Yellow CAB OF Pensacola Inc., 681 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Wells v. State, 731 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Wallace v. State, 689 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)