OLIVER HARTLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Oliver Hartley appeals the revocation of his probation for allegedly obstructing justice by giving police false identification. The court reversed the revocation, holding that merely providing a false name and birth date does not constitute the crime of obstructing justice by disguised person under Florida law, as "disguise" requires physical concealment in dress or appearance.
The court held that the term "disguise" as used in Section 843.03, Florida Statutes (1977), requires physical concealment in dress or appearance and does not encompass the conduct of giving police a false name and birth date. Therefore, the probation revocation could not stand.
[1] Giving a false name and birth date to police officers does not constitute "disguise" under Florida Statute § 843.03.
[2] A probation revocation cannot stand if the evidence presented does not demonstrate a violation of law as charged.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“"Disguise" may be defined as: to change the style of dress of, to give a new form or character, or to hide or obscure the true character by altering appearance.”
Establishes the dictionary definition of disguise requiring physical alteration of appearance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 21, 1978, Hartley pled guilty to burglary and grand theft and received five years probation. On November 30, 1978, his probation officer file…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Obstruction Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
On April 21, 1978, appellant Oliver Hart-ley pled guilty to burglary and grand theft charges, and was sentenced to five years probation. He appeals from the revocation of his probation for violating the condition of probation requiring him to live and remain at liberty without violating any law.
On November 30, 1978, appellant’s probation officer filed an affidavit alleging violation of the above condition in that appellant burglarized a residence and “obstructed justice by disguise person giving police officers an incorrect identification of himself . . ”
At the revocation hearing, no evidence was presented on the alleged burglary violation. A police officer testified that he interviewed appellant after appellant’s' arrest on a burglary charge and that appellant told the officer his name was Joe Hardy, spelled it as Hardy, and gave an incorrect birth date. The court found appellant had violated the probation condition by obstructing justice by being a disguised person and giving false information to the police officer. The court revoked probation and adjudicated appellant guilty of the original charges of grand theft and burglary, assigning concurrent five year jail sentences with credit for all time served.
Appellant argues that he could not be guilty of obstructing justice by disguised person since giving a false name and birth date does not come within the ordinary meaning of disguise. We agree.
Section 843.03, Florida Statutes (1977), provides that:
Whoever in any manner disguises himself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law, or with the intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any officer, beverage enforcement agent, or other person in the legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the constitution or the laws of the state, whether such intent is effected or not, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
“Disguise” may be defined as: to change the style of dress of, to give a new form or character, or to hide or obscure the true character by altering appearance. Webster’s New International Dictionary, 747 (2d Ed. 1957). Courts have interpreted the word “disguise” to refer to concealment of identity by masks or vestments. Hardyman v. Collins, 80 F.Supp. 501 (S.D.Cal. 1948), rev'd, 183 F. 2d 308 (9th Cir. 1950), aff’d, 341 U.S. 651, 71 S.Ct. 937, 95 L.Ed. 1253 (1951). “Disguise” is a change of guise or appearance, especially by unusual dress. Darneal v. State, 14 Okl.Cr. 540, 174 P. 290 (1917), 1 A.L.R. 638 (1919).
These definitions all contain some reference to physical concealment in dress or appearance, and do not encompass appellant’s conduct of giving police a false name and birth date. We hold that the term “disguise” as used in Section 843.03, Florida Statutes (1977), is not so broad as to include appellant’s conduct.
Since the evidence presented at appellant’s probation revocation hearing showed no violation of law as charged, the revocation cannot stand. We reverse the finding of violation, revocation of probation, and the ensuing judgment and sentence.
OTT, Acting C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 420 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…an apartment to look it over as a possible place to rent, the court in Clark v. State, 402 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), held that his probation could not be revoked simply because the police discovered drugs in the apartment. In Hartley v. State, 372 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), probation was revoked as a result of the probationer having given a false name and birthdate to a policeman who was investigating a burglary. The court reversed because this conduct did not fall within the charge of obstructing j…
-
Barkley v. State, 522 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…of a false name and social security number does not constitute a violation of section 843.03 and, therefore, that his convictions for resisting arrest and escape were likewise unlawful. In support of this argument, appellant cites Hartley v. State, 372 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), and Leland v. State, 386 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Although the Hartley and Leland cases hold that the giving of a false name and birthdate do not constitute an obstruction of justice by “disguise” under section 843.-03, Fl…
-
Leland v. State, 386 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…a false name to a police officer upon being stopped by said officer, and (b) a person’s probation may not be revoked for violating the above statute, as here, based on such conduct. D. G. v. State, 375 So. 2d 868 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Hartley v. State, 372 So. 2d 1180 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). Reversed and remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1951)
- Hardyman v. Collins, 183 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1950)