Case No. MM00-00835A-LD
Appeal No.: CC-48
SHAUN SHAPLEY,
Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
__________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
This is an appeal from the county court of Polk County, Judge Ellen Masters presiding. The Appellant, Shaun Shapley, was convicted of resisting an officer without violence and sentenced to one year probation with a condition of probation to serve thirty days in jail. Appellant seeks review of the judgment and sentence. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c). The ruling of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
I.
On May 8, 2000, at approximately 3:15 a.m, Officer Johnny Sikes was on patrol in a marked vehicle when a brown Toyota pulled beside his vehicle. (T23, 25, 41-44) Two occupants in the Toyota told Sikes that they were Abeing chased by a crazy man in a pickup truck.@ (T24, 45) They described the color of the truck as maroon. (T24, 45) As Sikes was learning of the incident, he heard tires Alike squealing [and] chirping@. (T 24) When he looked to see what it was he observed a maroon pickup truck Acome all the way over into the turn lane.@ (T 24-25) Sikes observed the driver of the truck slam on his brakes right behind the Toyota and Athe tires squalled.@ (T 25) The Toyota immediately fled from the truck. The maroon truck started to follow the Toyota, but upon observing the patrol car, the truck pulled into the parking lot of the nearby Walgreen=s. (T. 26) Sikes decided to stop the truck because of its erratic driving. (T26, 50) As Sikes parked his car and got out, the appellant got out of the truck. (T26, 48) Appellant was using a cell phone. When Sikes told him to get back into the car, appellant used obscene language and threw the phone inside the truck. (T26, 50, 51, 65) Officer Rose arrived at the scene. When Rose told appellant to keep his hands out of his pockets, appellant cursed at Rose. (T 27) According to Sikes, the appellant was leaning against his truck because he was not steady. (T27, 58) Sikes and Rose both testified they could smell the odor of alcohol on the appellant. (T28, 55-56, 66, 78) Sikes asked the appellant what was going on. (T28) Sikes testified that appellant responded that he was Achasing that vehicle because that was his girlfriend.@ (T28) When Sikes told him that the woman in the Toyota was black, appellant indicated that he had made a mistake. (T28) Sikes testified that appellant became agitated and said the officers had no reason to stop him. (T28, 65) Sikes and Rose both testified that a half-full glass of an alcoholic beverage was between the two seats of the truck. (T28-29, 54-55, 56, 59-60, 69-70, 78-79) The officers attempted to conduct a DUI investigation at the scene but couldn=t because the appellant was not following any of their commands. (T30) The officers told the the appellant they were going to pat him down for weapons because he kept putting his hands into his pockets despite their commands not to do so. (T30, 57-58, 65-66) Appellant again became belligerent. (T30) At that point, Sikes told the appellant that if he did not calm down, he was going to be arrested. The appellant continued on. (T30) The officers asked again to pat him down and again the appellant became belligerent. (T30) Sikes then told appellant that he was going to arrest him for resisting. (T30, 57)II.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying appellants motion for judgment of acquittal. Appellant contends that the state had failed to prove that the police were in a lawful execution of their legal duties and that the appellant had resisted them. Appellant argues that the legal duty requirement is absent in this case because, he alleges, the allegation acted on by the police amounted to no more than a mere suspicion of criminal activity, not warranting a stop. Thus, appellant argues, that without probable cause to arrest the appellant, the officers were not performing a legal duty when they detained him. Furthermore, the appellant argues that he was arrested only following his use of profanity and physical resistance to being apprehended.
III.
The directing of verdicts is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Shea v. State, 167 So.2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). If there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, the verdict should not be disturbed on appeal. Substantial evidence has been defined as Asuch evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred.@ Cohen v. State, 99 So.2d 563, 564 (Fla. 1957). If there is not substantial error showing an abuse of discretion, the ruling of the trial court must be affirmed. Shea. v. State, 167 So.2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) . Moreover, by moving for a directed verdict, the defendant accepts as proved all facts in evidence and every conclusion favorable to the state. A motion for directed verdict of acquittal should not be granted unless it is apparent that no legally sufficient evidence has been submitted upon which a jury could convict. Brown v. State, 294 So.2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The evidence must be reviewed in a light most favorable to the state. Cochran v. State, 547 So.2d 928 (Fa. 1989); Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla. 1974).
IV.
In this case, Deputy Sikes was told by citizen witnesses about a maroon truck that was chasing them. At about that time, Deputy Sikes personally observed a maroon truck speeding, slamming on its brakes, and squealing it=s tires. At that point, Deputy Sikes initiated an investigatory stop. In order to justify an investigatory stop, a police officer must have a founded suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the law. A founded suspicion is a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those circumstances are interpreted in the light of the officer=s knowledge. Williams v. State, 769 So.2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The right to stop an automobile for reasonable interrogation of the occupants under suspicious circumstances, Aought not be more restrictive than the right to stop an individual on the street.@ State v. Payton 344 So.2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) Having reviewed the evidence in this case, the court finds that there was competent substantial evidence to support the detention of the appellant. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant=s motion for judgment of acquittal.
Accordingly, he ruling of the county court is AFFIRMED.
ORDERED December 2001.
Charles B. Curry , Chief Judge