Sherrita Javon Northern v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 10, 2026
Docket6D2025-0295
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2025-0295
Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CT-007631-A-O
_____________________________
SHERRITA JAVON NORTHERN,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
Appeal from the County Court for Orange County.
Amanda S. Bova, Judge.
July 10, 2026
NARDELLA, J.
Sherrita J. Northern (“Northern”) appeals her conviction for driving under the
influence in violation of section 316.193(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2023). Under
Florida’s DUI statute, the legislature defined the offense to encompass not only
persons who are actively driving a vehicle while impaired, but also persons who are
in “actual physical control” of a vehicle. Northern contends that the trial court
should have granted her motion for judgment of acquittal because there was
insufficient evidence at trial to establish that she was in actual physical control of
her vehicle because the evidence showed that her key was not in the vehicle’s
ignition.
Evidence was presented at trial that Northern’s key was in the ignition. Thus,
while couched as a sufficiency of the evidence argument, Northern really challenges
the weight of the evidence adduced at trial, which is not the focus of a motion for
judgment of acquittal. On review of a motion for judgment of acquittal, it is the
sufficiency of the evidence that is at issue and the question posed is “whether the
evidence presented is legally adequate to permit a conviction.” Robbins v. State, 250
So. 3d 722, 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
In contrast, Northern’s argument on appeal—that better evidence proves her
key was not in the ignition while she sat in her vehicle—would require this Court to
reweigh the evidence, and such a course of action is improper. See Guibord v. Ford
by & through Chopin, 338 So. 3d 928, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (“Granting appellate
relief . . . as requested by Appellant would involve reweighing evidence and
accepting what Appellant contends is the ‘better’ evidence. Such a course of action
is improper for an appellate court.” (citing Michael Anthony Co. v. Palm Springs
Townhomes, 174 So. 3d 428, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). We therefore affirm as to
the only argument made by Northern. In doing so, we note that while Northern
disputes the evidence, she makes no argument, either below or on appeal, as to the
proper meaning of “actual physical control” of a vehicle. State v. Washington, 403
So. 3d 465, 470 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (explaining that without any
authoritative interpretation by the Florida Supreme Court or our own district, we
undertake our interpretive work according to first principles, which requires that
2
statutes be interpreted according to the plain meaning of their text, looking to all the
textual and structural clues that bear on the meaning of a disputed text and using the
traditional interpretive canons for guidance where helpful.). Therefore, our decision
in this case should not be taken to express a view as to the correct interpretation of
this portion of the statute. Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. for
Ameriquest Mortg. Sec. Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-
R8, No. 51 6D2023-1482, 2026 WL 785140, *12 (Fla. 6th DCA Mar. 20, 2026)
(Mize, J., concurring) (“If it is not already clear, parties and their counsel litigating
in courts within the Sixth District should vigilantly watch for issues on which our
sister courts have erred and which we can correct… On appeal in this court, that
argument can then be raised as a basis for reversal and decided. When the issue is
properly brought before us, we will always endeavor to decide the issue correctly
under the law, with due respect to our sister courts but never deference.”).
AFFIRMED.
BROWNLEE, J., concurs.
SMITH, J., concurs in result only.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Public Defender,
Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kurt T. Koehler, Assistant
Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
3