Title: State of Florida v. Arnell Waits
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC01-2269
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: February 13, 2003

Supreme Court of Florida
_____________
No. SC01-2269
_____________
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Petitioner,
vs.
ARNELL WAITS,
Respondent.
[February 13, 2003]
WELLS, J.
We have for review Waits v. State, 795 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001),
which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Chaeld v. State, 599 So.
2d 1362, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3),
Fla. Const.
The respondent was convicted by a jury of aggravated battery, aggravated
assault, and false imprisonment.  The district court reversed respondent’s
conviction of false imprisonment because respondent’s confinement of the victim
1.  The district court also reduced the respondent’s aggravated battery
conviction to simple battery.  The State did not appeal this holding.
2.  Convicting the respondent of battery, aggravated assault, and false
imprisonment does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.  See U.S. Const.
amend. V; art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.  “The Double Jeopardy Clause in both the state
and federal constitutions protects criminal defendants from multiple convictions
and punishments for the same offense.”  Gordon v. State, 780 So. 2d 17, 19 (Fla.
1991).  Application of the test announced in Blockburger v. United States, 284
U.S. 299 (1932), codified in section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1997), reveals that
the Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated because the statutory elements of false
imprisonment are different from the elements of both battery and aggravated
assault.  Compare § 787.02, Fla. Stat. (1997), with §§ 784.021-.03, Fla. Stat.
(1997).  False imprisonment is a separate offense from aggravated battery and
aggravated assault.
-2-
was incidental to the crimes of battery and aggravated assault and therefore did not
meet the test announced by this Court in Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963, 965 (Fla.
1983).1  See Waits, 795 So. 2d at 239.  In State v. Smith, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S120
(Fla. Feb. 6, 2003), this Court held that the Faison test is not applicable to false
imprisonment convictions.  Accordingly, we quash the district court’s reversal of
the respondent’s false imprisonment conviction.2  We direct that this case be
remanded to the trial court for resentencing based on the district court’s holding
reducing the respondent’s aggravated battery conviction to simple battery.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., and HARDING, Senior Justice, concur.
PARIENTE, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, C.J., and SHAW,
Senior Justice, concur.
-3-
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
PARIENTE, J., dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in State v.
Smith, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S120, S122 (Fla. Feb. 6, 2003).  As I stated in Smith, the
purpose of Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983), is to ensure that the
confinement crime is distinct from other criminal charges involving forcible
felonies.  In this case, the Fifth District concluded that "the five to ten minute fight
in which Waits committed both a battery and a separate aggravated assault, did not
involve a further confinement separate and apart from these two crimes." Waits v.
State, 795 So. 2d 237, 239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).  Treating this conduct as false
imprisonment makes almost every forcible crime also a false imprisonment,
contrary to the principle of Faison.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and SHAW, Senior Justice, concur.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct
Conflict
Fifth District - Case No. 5D00-2708
(Osceola County)
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Mary G. Jolley and Kellie A. Nielan,
Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, Florida,
-4-
for Petitioner
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Noel A. Pelella, Assistant Public Defender,
Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Respondent