STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN O. VARELA AND JASON ALBURY, APPELLEES
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.
The State of Florida appealed the dismissal of escape charges against two juveniles detained at an Orlando facility who attempted but did not complete an escape. The court held that section 39.061, Florida Statutes, incorporates by reference section 944.40's provision criminalizing attempts to escape, and therefore juveniles can be charged for attempted escape, not just completed escapes.
Section 39.061 is a reference statute that incorporates by reference section 944.40, which includes provisions criminalizing attempts to escape. Therefore, juveniles can be prosecuted for attempting to escape from a secure detention facility, not only for completed escapes.
[1] A statute that adopts another statute by reference incorporates all provisions of the referenced statute, including those related to attempts.
[2] An escape statute that incorporates another statute by reference should be read in pari materia with the referenced statute.
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“the statute referred to is treated and considered as if it were incorporated into the formed part of that which makes the reference”
Establishes the principle that reference statutes incorporate the provisions of the statutes they reference, as established in Van Pelt v. Hilliard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVarela and Albury were confined at the Orlando Juvenile Detention facility. While in the recreation yard, they ran to the east fence, climbed it to re…
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 Attempted Escape cases and more on FLexlaw
[*560] PETERSON, Judge.
The question raised in this appeal by the state of Florida is whether a juvenile violates section 39.061, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992)1 by attempting to escape rather than by completing the escape. The trial court granted the juveniles’ motion to dismiss, answering the question in the negative.
Varela and Albury were confined at the Orlando Juvenile Detention facility. While they were in the recreation yard, they ran to the east fence, climbed the fence to the roof of the detention center, and were apprehended there although they appeared to avoid apprehension while they were searching for a place to jump.
The trial court agreed with the juveniles that section 39.061, Florida Statutes, is only applicable to those who complete an escape rather than to those who are apprehended before an escape is successful. The statute provides:
39.061 Escapes from secure detention or residential commitment facility. — An escape from any secure detention facility maintained for the temporary care of children, pending adjudication, disposition, or placement or an escape from any moderate or high risk residential commitment facility defined in s. 39.01(61)(c) and (d), maintained for the custody, treatment, or rehabilitation of children found to have committed delinquent acts or violations of law constitutes escape within the intent and meaning of s. 944.40 and is a felony in the third degree.
The state argues that by enactment of section 39.061, the legislature intended to adopt by specific reference all of the “ramifications” of section 944.40, Florida Statutes, including the attempt to escape. The latter section provides:
944.40 Escapes; 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. 774.084. The punishment of imprisonment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed upon any prisoner. The state’s argument is supported by the supreme court’s interpretation of section 39.-112, Florida Statutes (Supp.1978), a predecessor to section 39.061 which contained provisions with differences insignificant to the issue on appeal. In State v. J.R.M., 388 So. 2d 1227 (Fla.1980), the court explained that the then-existing section 39.112 was a “reference statute” which referred to section 944.40:
which refer to and by the reference wholly or partially adopt pre-existing statutes.
In the construction of such statutes the statute referred to is treated and considered as if it were incorporated into the formed part of that which makes the reference ....
Id. at 1229, quoting Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792, 808-809, 78 So. 693, 698 (1918). The court further stated that the two statutes complement each other and should be read in pari materia. Id. The juveniles in the instant case have not advanced any reason why section 39.061 is not also a reference statute incorporating the provisions relating to an attempt to escape.
The order granting the juveniles’ motion to dismiss is vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
ORDER VACATED; REMANDED.
HARRIS, C.J., and DIAMANTIS, J., concur. . This appeal does not raise the constitutionality of this statute. This court found the statute to be constitutional in B.H. v. State, 622 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), rev. granted, 632 So. 2d 1025 (Fla.1994), but our decision is currently under consideration by the supreme court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. King, 968 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…a Statutes (2005). The applicable escape statute depends on the location of the defendant at the time of the attempt rather than as specified by the original sentence. See, e.g., Danzy v. State, 603 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); State v. Varela, 636 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Because King attempted to escape from a juvenile detention facility, the trial court did not err in finding that the applicable statute is section 985.3141 and not 944.40. Affirmed. FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792 (Fla. 1918)
- B.H. v. State, 622 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- THE Fla. BAR. Re Petition TO Amend Fla. BAR Integration Rule, 388 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 1980)