AARON DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Aaron Davis appeals his convictions for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence, and grand theft of a motor vehicle. The court affirms most convictions but reverses the multiple convictions for resisting arrest with violence, finding that continuous resistance during a single arrest attempt constitutes only one offense despite involvement of multiple officers.
The court affirmed the admission of the high crime area testimony, finding no preserved error due to lack of objection. The court held that continuous resistance to an ongoing arrest attempt constitutes only one count of resisting with violence, regardless of the number of officers involved, and therefore the trial court erred in entering multiple convictions and sentences for this offense.
[1] An appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal if the defendant failed to preserve the issue for review by objecting at trial.
[2] A defendant's continuous resistance to an ongoing attempt to effect arrest constitutes a single offense of resisting arrest with violence, even if multiple officers are i…
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“the defendant's continuous resistance to the ongoing attempt to effect his arrest constitutes only one count of resisting with violence even though several officers became involved in the altercation”
This establishes the legal principle that multiple officers' involvement in subduing a single resisting suspect does not create multiple resisting convictions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was observed driving a stolen vehicle. When an officer attempted to stop him, Davis accelerated and fled. After losing control, Davis drove his …
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 Aggravated Assault On A Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Aaron Davis (“defendant”) appeals his convictions and sentences for one count of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, four counts of resisting arrest with violence, and grand theft of a motor vehicle. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The defendant was observed driving a stolen vehicle. When an officer attempted to stop the vehicle, the defendant accelerated in an attempt to flee. A short distance later, the defendant lost control of the vehicle and ended up on the sidewalk. The officer blocked the vehicle by positioning his car in front of the defendant’s car. The defendant then drove his vehicle into the officer’s car, pushed it out of the way, and drove off. The officer continued the chase.
Another officer saw the defendant driving toward him. The defendant hit the front of this officer’s car and then crashed into another car. The chase continued on foot where four officers eventually subdued and handcuffed the defendant.
On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred when it allowed the patrolling officer to testify that he observed the defendant in a high crime area. The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in entering multiple judgments of conviction and sentences for resisting an officer based on an ongoing attempt to arrest him.
First, we find no reversible error in the trial court’s decision to allow the patrolling officer to testify that he observed the defendant in a high crime area. There was no objection made to the testimony which related to the officer’s specific detention of the defendant. Therefore, the defendant has failed to preserve this issue for appeal. See § 924.051(3), Fla.Stat. (2000); Filan v.. State, 768 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
However, we do find the trial court erred in entering multiple judgments of conviction and sentences for resisting arrest with violence. As correctly conceded by the State, the defendant’s continuous resistance to the ongoing attempt to effect his arrest constitutes only one count of resisting with violence even though several officers became involved in the altercation. See Wallace v. State, 724 So. 2d 1176 (Fla.1998); Fogle v. State, 754 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
In conclusion, because the trial court erred in entering multiple judgments of conviction and sentences for resisting with violence, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate three of the four convictions for resisting with violence. The defendant’s remaining convictions and sentences are affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Castro v. State, 389 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- Filan v. State, 768 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Fogle v. State, 754 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)