MALIK MOCOMBE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A pocketknife cannot constitute an unlawful antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure under Florida Statutes § 812.015(7) unless it was designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat such devices.
[1] A motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) must be granted when the undisputed facts fail to establish the elements of the charged offense.
[2] The plain and unambiguous language of a statute must be given its obvious meaning, and resort to rules of statutory interpretation is unnecessary when the meaning is clea…
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“When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute itself must be given its plain and obvious meaning.”
Court's application of statutory interpretation principles to determine that a pocketknife does not meet the definition of an antishoplifting countermeasure.
Malik Mocombe was charged with unlawful use or attempted use of an antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure in violation of Florida …
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.190(C)(4) Motion To Dismiss cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 14, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-184 Lower Tribunal No. F21-13630B
________________
Malik Mocombe,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge. Eugene F. Zenobi, Regional Counsel, and Kristen Kawass, Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. MILLER, J. Appellant, Malik Mocombe, appeals from an order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss one count of unlawful use or attempted use of an antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure within any premises used for a retail establishment, in violation of section 812.015(7), Florida Statutes (2022). Because the undisputed facts failed to establish that he used or attempted to use the pocketknife recovered from his person, let alone that the instrument itself satisfied the plain and unambiguous statutory definition of “any item or device which is designed, manufactured, modified, or altered to defeat any antishoplifting or inventory control device,” we are constrained to reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the challenged charge. § 812.015(1)(i), Fla. Stat.; Tallahassee Mem’l Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Tallahassee Med. Ctr., Inc., 681 So. 2d 826, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute itself must be given its plain and obvious meaning.”) (quoting C.S. v. S.H., 671 So. 2d 260, 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)); State v. Blunt, 744 So. 2d 1258, 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding aluminum foil used to defeat inventory device failed to satisfy requisite statutory definition of antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure because it was not “designed, manufactured, modified, or altered”); see also Cenatis v. State, 120 So. 3d 41, 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (emphasizing plain wording of applicable definition).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cygnet Homes, Inc. v. Kaleny Ltd. OF Fla., Inc., 681 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- C.S. and J.S. v. S.H. and K.H., 671 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- State v. Blunt, 744 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Francesca Cenatis v. State, 120 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)