ANGEL M. MALDONADO MELENDEZ, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Angel Maldonado Melendez appealed his conviction for kidnapping with a firearm, challenging whether the facts established the confinement element. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding that dragging the victim at gunpoint by her hair down a hallway and up stairs to a secluded location was sufficient to establish confinement under Florida's kidnapping statute.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that dragging the victim at gunpoint by her hair down a hallway and up half a flight of stairs to a secluded landing constituted sufficient confinement under the kidnapping statute. The court also affirmed the trial court's correction of a sentencing error regarding the felony classification.
[1] Dragging a victim at gunpoint by her hair down a hallway and up stairs to a secluded landing is sufficient to establish confinement under the kidnapping statute.
[2] A conviction for aggravated assault may be prohibited by double jeopardy if it arises from the same conduct as another offense.
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“Melendez dragged the victim at gunpoint, by her hair, down a hallway and up half a flight of stairs to a more secluded landing in the back of a building. Those facts are sufficient to establish confinement under the statute.”
Establishes the court's holding that the specific facts constituted confinement despite the defendant's reliance on Conner v. State
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMelendez dragged a victim at gunpoint, by her hair, down a hallway and up half a flight of stairs to a more secluded landing in the back of a building…
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 Kidnapping With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
Angel Maldonado Melendez appeals his conviction for kidnapping with a firearm, arguing the facts were insufficient to establish confinement. Melendez recognizes the three-part test in Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963 (Fla.1983),1 is inapplicable because he was charged under section 787.01(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes,2 not under section 787.01(1)(a)2., kidnapping with the intent to commit or facilitate the commission of any felony. See Sutton v. State, 834 So.2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Instead, the issue is the sufficiency of the evidence relating to the confinement element.
*625Melendez relies upon Conner v. State, 19 So.3d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), where the court found that holding a victim to the ground while strangling her did not constitute confinement under the kidnapping statute. In contrast, Melendez dragged the victim at gunpoint, by her hair, down a hallway and up half a flight of stairs to a more secluded landing in the back of a building. Those facts are sufficient to establish confinement under the statute. We affirm.
The State cross-appeals the trial court’s order granting Melendez’s motion to correct sentencing error. We find no error in the trial court’s determination that one of Melendez’s aggravated assault convictions was prohibited by double jeopardy.
The sentencing documents designated the kidnapping with a firearm as a first-degree felony punishable by life. This appears to be a scrivener’s error. The judgment and sentence should be corrected to reflect the offense as a life felony. § 775.087(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008).
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, TORPY and COHEN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perry v. State, 57 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ther in the course of [his] vicious attack upon her[J” Id. at 232. The Third District affirmed the conviction, finding these facts sufficient to establish confinement under the kidnapping statute. Id. This case is also similar to Melendez v. State, 51 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), where the defendant was convicted of kidnapping under section 787.01(l)(a)3 after he “dragged the victim at gunpoint, by her hair, down a hallway and up half a flight of stairs[.]” Id. In affirming the defendant’s conviction, th…
-
Somers v. State, 162 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…” § 787.01(1)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (2013). Under this portion of the kidnapping statute, the State need not prove that the confinement is independent of the related crime. See Allen v. State, [*1079] 137 So. 3d 946, 959-60 (Fla.2013); Melendez v. State, 51 So. 3d 624, 624-25 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Thus, we find no error in the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal. Next, Somers claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on a witness’s comment regarding Somers’s exercise of…
-
Miller v. State, 124 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…sted at least seven minutes and involved the victim being beaten in one room, dragged by her hair into another room where the beating continued, and then dragged by her neck or hair outside where the beating concluded”); Maldonado Melendez v. State, 51 So. 3d 624, 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (affirming conviction under section 787.01(1)(a)3., based on evidence he "dragged the victim at gunpoint, by her hair, down a hallway and up half a flight of stairs to a more secluded landing in the back of a building”); Sta…
Authorities Cited
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983)
- Sutton v. State, 834 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Conner v. State, 19 So. 3d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)