Legal Opinion

Maldonado Melendez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 14, 2011No. 5D09-2001PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Angel Maldonado Melendez appeals his conviction for kidnapping with a firearm, arguing the facts were insufficient to establish confinement. Melendez recognizes the three-part test in Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963 (Fla.1983),1 is inapplicable because he was charged under section 787.01(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes,2 not under section 787.01(1)(a)2., kidnapping with the intent to commit or facilitate the commission of any felony. See Sutton v. State, 834 So.2d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Instead, the issue is the sufficiency of the evidence relating to the confinement element.

*625Melendez relies upon…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Faison v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1983
  2. State v. BuggsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1976
  3. Sutton v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
  4. Conner v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2009

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Somers v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015
  2. Miller v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013
  3. Perry v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API