Nathaniel Romo v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledNovember 24, 2021
Docket2D21-0779
StatusPublished
๐ฐ News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
NATHANIEL JESUS ROMO,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D21-779
November 24, 2021
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; David Lee
Denkin, Judge.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Cynthia J. Dodge,
Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cynthia
Richards, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
SLEET, Judge.
Nathaniel Romo challenges his county court convictions and
sentences for leaving the scene of a crash involving unattended
property (count one) and making a false report (count two). The
trial court held a bench trial, after which it adjudicated Romo guilty
and sentenced him to six months' probation, a twelve-hour driver
improvement course, seventy hours' community service, and a
suspended ten-day jail sentence. Because the trial court erred in
denying Romo's motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of
leaving the scene of a crash involving unattended property, we
reverse Romo's conviction and sentence for count one. We affirm in
all other respects.
The evidence adduced at trial showed that on April 6, 2020,
Romo's vehicle lost control while making a left turn on a rain-slick
road. The vehicle slid onto a grassy area that contained a
pedestrian traffic light pole, struck the pole, and ultimately slid into
an empty restaurant parking lot next to the grassy area. The pole
remained in the middle of the parking lot, and the vehicle
eventually came to rest in front of the restaurant, where it remained
until police arrived. Two witnesses approached the vehicle to check
on the occupants and then immediately went across the street to a
convenience store, where they reported the incident to the police. A
deputy who was in the area arrived within minutes of dispatch and
2
saw Romo and his passenger standing outside of the vehicle, where
they remained throughout the investigation.
On appeal, Romo argues that the trial court erred in denying
his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of leaving the
scene of a crash involving unattended property. We agree.
We review a ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal under
a de novo standard and must determine whether the conviction was
supported by competent substantial evidence. Pagan v. State, 830
So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002). "If, after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find
the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt, sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction." Id. (citing
Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1999)).
To prove the crime of leaving the scene of a crash involving
damage to unattended property, one of the elements the State had
to establish beyond a reasonable doubt was that Romo failed to
immediately stop at the scene of the crash or collision and then
either (a) failed to locate and notify the operator or owner of the
other property of his name and address and the registration
number of the vehicle he was driving or (b) failed to attach securely
3
in a conspicuous place in or on the other property a written notice
giving his name and address and the registration number of the
vehicle he was driving and, without unnecessary delay, notify the
nearest police station. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 28.4(b);
ยง 316.063(1), Fla. Stat. (2020).
Here, Romo did stop. The vehicle was parked in front of a
closed restaurant, and Romo was standing in front of the entrance
to the restaurant. Despite the State's argument that Romo did not
intend to stay, Romo never left the scene. He was standing in front
of the parked vehicle when the deputy arrived on the scene a few
minutes after the crash. The statute does not criminalize an intent
to leave the scene; a person must have actually failed to stop.
Furthermore, because the deputy arrived within minutes of the
accident, his arrival obviated the requirement that Romo contact
the police without unnecessary delay.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying
Romo's motion for judgment of acquittal, and we reverse his
conviction and sentence on the charge of leaving the scene of a
crash involving damage to unattended property.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
4
MORRIS, C.J., and LUCAS, J., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
5