DORSEY
v.
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.
Tony Ray Dorsey appeals his conviction for resisting a law enforcement officer with violence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding competent and substantial evidence supported the verdict and that the deputy was engaged in lawful execution of duty when confronted by Dorsey.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that competent and substantial evidence supported Dorsey's conviction for resisting the deputy with violence, that the deputy had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity from the dispatch tip and his own observations and was thus engaged in lawful execution of duty, and that the third issue regarding jail credit was affirmed without further discussion.
[1] Evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party may support a conviction if it can be reasonably inferred that the defendant knowingly and willfully re…
[2] A trial court should rarely grant a motion for judgment of acquittal on the issue of intent, as intent is typically proven through inference.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Because direct evidence of intent is rare, and intent is usually proven through inference, 'a trial court should rarely, if ever, grant a motion for judgment of acquittal on the issue of intent.'”
Establishes the high bar for judgment of acquittal on intent-based charges, supporting affirmance of the conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDorsey was convicted of resisting a law enforcement officer with violence. A sheriff's deputy received a tip from dispatch and made observations that …
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 Lawful Execution Of A Legal Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D2023-2113 _____________________________
TONY RAY DORSEY,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County. Christopher N. Patterson, Judge.
February 5, 2025 PER CURIAM.
Tony Ray Dorsey appeals the judgment and sentence entered following his conviction for resisting a law enforcement officer with violence. He raises three issues on appeal.
First, he argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal. The law requires we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. In that light, it can be reasonably inferred that Dorsey knowingly and willfully resisted the sheriff’s deputy with violence. We find that there was competent, substantial evidence to support Dorsey’s conviction. See Manuel v. State, 16 So. 3d 833, 835 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“Because direct evidence of intent is rare, and intent is usually proven through inference, ‘a trial court should rarely, if ever, grant
2
a motion for judgment of acquittal on the issue of intent.’” (quoting Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999))).
Second, he contends that the trial court’s denial of his motion was fundamental error. He argues the deputy was not engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty. This evaluation is fact specific, and we must consider the circumstances wholistically. Considering, among other things, the tip from dispatch and the deputy’s own observations, we find the deputy had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and was therefore engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty. See Baptiste v. State, 995 So. 2d 285, 297 (Fla. 2008) (“Even though an anonymous tip may not provide predictive information or the precise basis for the tipster’s knowledge, subsequent observations of a suspect who matches the description given may afford officers reasonable suspicion to seize that suspect.”). As such, the trial court did not fundamentally err when denying the motion for judgment of acquittal.
Finally, we affirm the third issue without further discussion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801 (court commentary providing that “[a]ll jail credit issues must be handled pursuant to this rule”).
AFFIRMED.
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and BILBREY and LONG, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Russell K. Ramey of Ramey Law Offices, Panama City, for Appellant. Christina Piotrowski, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Manuel v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)