HERMAN MUNN, JR., 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.
A conviction for escape under section 944.40, Florida Statutes, is improper when the defendant is participating in a supervised community release program and is not in confinement.
The appellant, while in a supervised community release program, left his approved residence. He was subsequently charged with and convicted of escape …
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 Construction Of Penal Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
While a participant in the Department of Corrections supervised community release program, the appellant left his approved residence, his mother’s house. For this behavior, he was charged with and convicted of escape, in violation of section 944.40, Florida Statutes (1987). The appellant correctly contends that since he was not in confinement, he should not have been charged with escape.
The escape statute states:
Any prisoner confined in any prison, jail, road camp, or other penal institution, state, county or municipal, working upon the public roads, or being transported to or from a place of confinement who escapes or attempts to escape from such confinement shall be guilty of a felony....
§ 944.40, Fla.Stat. (1987).
The offense requires that the defendant be confined. Here, the appellant had been released from state prison into the supervised community release program authorized by section 945.091, Florida Statutes (1987). Section 945.091(l)(d) states that “fwjhile in a supervised release status, the inmate shall not be considered to be in the care and custody of the department or in confinement, extended or otherwise.” It is clear that the program is not a confinement and is more akin to community control. Since the appellant was not confined, he could not escape. We note that while prosecution for escape is not authorized, the Department of Corrections has the authority, and exercised it here, to terminate an inmate’s participation in the release program and to return the inmate to a confinement facility.
Accordingly, the conviction is reversed and the judgment and sentence are vacated.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and THREAD GILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hilbert v. State, 661 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…CURIAM. By way of a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence brought pursuant to Rule 3.800, Fla.R.Crim.P., appellant Daniel Hilbert seeks to challenge the validity of his 1990 conviction and sentence for escape. Based upon the holding of Munn v. State, 573 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), Hilbert argues that where he was in a supervised release status and not confined as that term is defined in section 945.091(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1989),1 he could not properly be convicted of escape. We find that Hilbert’s cha…
-
State v. Cazjkowski, 581 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the escape charge against the defendant. See Gregory v. State, 573 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Munn v. State, 573 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We do not have jurisdiction to review the defendant’s contention, raised for the first time in his answer brief, that his sentence of house arrest, imposed on September 4, 1989, is illegal. The defendant may seek correction of an…