Automated Summary
Key Facts
Amy Arroyo was charged with four counts of interfering with custody in violation of section 787.03, Florida Statutes. She appealed the denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing only that her conduct did not amount to a 'taking' as required under the statute. The court affirmed her conviction because a 'taking' is not the only way to interfere with custody under the statute, and Arroyo did not challenge alternative conduct grounds, leaving the court without option but to affirm. The affirmance is without prejudice to Arroyo to seek postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Issues
Appellant challenged whether her conduct met the 'taking' requirement under section 787.03 for interfering with custody. The court affirmed the conviction noting that 'taking' is not the only way to interfere with custody under the statute, and the appellant did not challenge alternative conduct.
Holdings
The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed Amy Arroyo's conviction for four counts of interfering with custody under section 787.03, Florida Statutes. Arroyo appealed the denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing only that her conduct did not amount to a 'taking' as required by the statute. The court held that a taking is not the only way to interfere with custody under the statute, and because Arroyo did not challenge the alternative conduct below, the court was without option but to affirm her conviction. The affirmance is without prejudice to Arroyo seeking postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Remedies
The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed Amy Arroyo's conviction on four counts of interfering with custody, denying her motion for judgment of acquittal. The court held that Arroyo failed to challenge alternative conduct under the statute, and the affirmance is without prejudice to seek postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Legal Principles
The court held that a 'taking' is not the only way in which a person may interfere with custody under section 787.03, Florida Statutes. The court affirmed the conviction because the appellant did not challenge alternative conduct under the statute, and the motion for judgment of acquittal failed to fully set forth specific grounds. The affirmation is without prejudice to seek postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Precedent Name
- Pryor v. State
- Woods v. State
Cited Statute
Florida Statutes
Judge Name
- Judge Wozniak
- Judge Brownlee
- Judge Nardella
Passage Text
- Amy Arroyo was charged with four counts of interfering with custody in violation of section 787.03, Florida Statutes (2024). She appeals the denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal, in which she argued only that her conduct did not amount to a taking as required under section 787.03. However, a taking is not the only way in which a person may interfere with custody under the statute. Because Arroyo did not challenge the alternative conduct below, we are without option but to affirm her conviction.
- AFFIRMED.