DWIGHT JAY SAMS, 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.
Dwight Sams appeals his first-degree murder conviction, arguing that his felony murder conviction based on escape charges was improper because he was not technically in custody when he fled from an arresting officer. The court affirmed, holding that Florida law permits felony murder convictions based on escape even during the arrest process, following State v. Ramsey.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that under Florida law as established in State v. Ramsey, a person can be guilty of escape and thus subject to felony murder charges even during the arrest process, before formal confinement.
[1] A person commits escape under section 944.40, Florida Statutes, when they escape or attempt to escape from confinement in a penal institution, even if the escape occurs d…
[2] A conviction for felony murder can be based on the underlying felony of escape, as defined by section 944.40, Florida Statutes, even if the escape occurs during the commi…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“While this court has agreed with appellant's analysis of the escape statute we are bound to follow the Ramsey decision which is contrary to appellant's position.”
Establishes that although the appellate court found merit in Sams's statutory interpretation argument, it was bound by precedent to reject his appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSams was in possession of a stolen car when a policeman placed him under arrest and began to handcuff him. Sams broke free and fled, taking another ve…
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 Escape Statute Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for murder in the first degree and other crimes.
Appellant urges that he is not guilty of murder one because his felony murder conviction was improperly based upon an allegation that he was engaged in the crime of escape at the time he was involved in a fatal automobile collision. Appellant was in possession of a stolen car and was placed under arrest by a policeman and was about to be handcuffed when he broke and ran. In the process of running appellant took another vehicle and tried to elude the many policemen now chasing him. Tragically, appellant collided with a police car and killed the policeman in the car. Appellant was then put under control and taken into custody, in which he remains. The statute which defines escape, and which elevates appellant’s homicide offense to the highest level is section 944.40.
944.40 Escape; penalty. — 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 of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The punishment of imprisonment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed upon any prisoner. Appellant’s argument is that he was not a prisoner confined in a prison or jail, etc., and that he was not actually being transported, but was in the process of being arrested and handcuffed. He says that while he is guilty of resisting arrest1 and guilty of fleeing and eluding,2 he did not violate the escape statute; he was never really in custody so he cannot be deemed to have escaped confinement; he was not in custody so he could not have been “being transported.” Appellant properly concedes his case is governed by State v. Ramsey, 475 So. 2d 671 (Fla.1985). While this court has agreed with appellant’s analysis of the escape statute we are bound to follow the Ramsey decision which is contrary to appellant’s position. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973).
Appellant has raised an argument that his lawyer should have requested certain lesser-included offense instructions and has filed letters from jurors expressing regrets concerning their verdict, the law and their instructions on the law by the court. Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and other procedures for collateral relief may be used to present appellant’s post-trial attacks on the judgment, not this appeal from the judgment.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . §§ 843.01 and 843.02, Fla.Stat. (1987).
. § 316.1935, Fla.Stat. (1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Applewhite v. State, 874 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (evidence was sufficient to support conviction of escape because defendant was in custody notwithstanding that the deputy had not completed the act of acquiring total physical control at the instant of escape); Sams v. State, 600 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). The modified instruction read to the jury consisted of the standard instruction with two additions: Before you can find the defendant guilty of Escape, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doub…
-
McKINNON v. State, 17 So. 3d 860 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…o. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (escape conviction affirmed where officer advised suspect that he was under arrest and suspect asked and received permission from officer to enter residence to advise aunt of arrest but failed to return); Sams v. State, 600 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (escape found where suspect was placed under arrest but fled when he was about to be handcuffed). The trial court properly denied McKin-non’s motion for judgment of acquittal. AFFIRMED. LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Ramsey, 475 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1985)