L.K.B., A CHILD AND A.B., A CHILD, APPELLANTS,
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.
The appellate court affirmed convictions for resisting an officer without violence but reversed the trespass conviction for A.B., holding that an unenclosed parking lot cannot constitute the curtilage of a structure under Florida's trespass statute.
The court affirmed the convictions for resisting an officer without violence for both appellants but reversed A.B.'s trespass conviction, holding that for an area to be considered part of the curtilage of a structure, it must be enclosed in some manner, and an unenclosed parking lot does not qualify.
[1] A conviction for resisting an officer without violence is supported by evidence that the defendant resisted officers attempting to quell a disturbance.
[2] The definition of "structure" for purposes of trespass includes the curtilage thereof.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In Hamilton, the supreme court held that for the area around a structure to be considered part of the "curtilage," that area had to be enclosed in some manner.”
Establishes the legal standard for curtilage under Florida law that controls the trespass analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceL.K.B. and A.B. were involved in a confrontation with police officers responding to a disturbance call at a 7-Eleven parking lot. The officers had dif…
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 Resisting An Officer Without Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Judge.
The convictions in these consolidated cases stem from a confrontation between Appellants and police officers at a 7-Eleven parking lot. The officers were responding to a disturbance call and encountered difficulty quelling the situation. The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that L.K.B. and A.B. were guilty of resisting an officer without violence in violation of section 843.02, Florida Statutes (1995). Accordingly, we affirm L.KB.’s and A.B.’s convictions and sentences on those charges. That affirmance does not end our inquiry, however. A.B. was also convicted of trespass in a structure or conveyance in violation of subsection 810.08(1), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides:
Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
Subsection 810.011(1) defines “structure” to include not only a building, but also the curtilage thereof. Under the State’s theory, the parking lot was the curtilage of the 7-Eleven and A.B. was thus properly convicted of trespass in a structure. The trial court, acting without the benefit of the supreme court’s decision in State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.1995), agreed. We must reverse.
In Hamilton, the supreme court held that for the area around a structure to be considered part of the “curtilage,” that area had to be enclosed in some manner. While Hamilton was decided in the context of a burglary charge, not trespass, that difference is immaterial. Both burglary and trespass rely on the definition of “structure” as found in subsection 810.011(1), and accordingly, there is no basis for limiting Hamilton’s holding to burglary cases. In the instant matter, there was no evidence that the 7-Eleven parking lot was in any way enclosed. Thus, the evidence was insufficient to support A.B.’s conviction for trespass in a structure or conveyance.
AFFIRMED as to Case No. 95-2149. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part as to Case No. 95-2304.
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. State, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…finition should apply. Id. at 1044. As a result, “some form of an enclosure [is necessary] in order for the area surrounding a residence to be considered part of the ‘curtilage’ as referred to in the burglary statute.” Id.; see also L.K.B. v. State, 677 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Hamilton does not instruct what might constitute “some form” of an enclosure. The facts in the Hamilton case involved a yard bounded only by “several unevenly spaced trees,” which the court found not to meet the “enclosure” req…
-
Freeman v. State, 743 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…order for an area surrounding a residence to be curtilage, “some form of an enclosure” is required. State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038, 1044 (Fla.1995). This enclosure requirement has since been extended to the trespass statute. See L.K.B. v. State, 677 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Here, the State failed to present evidence that the area in front of the abandoned apartment building was enclosed in any manner. Accordingly, we reverse Freeman’s conviction for violation of section 810.08(1), trespass in a s…
-
B.W. v. State, 973 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…tairway, which was plainly not within the “structure” itself, was also, contrary to the trial court’s belief, not within its “curti-lage,” so as to justify such a conviction. See Freeman v. State, 743 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); L.K.B. v. State, 677 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). The state bravely suggests that B.W. was actually guilty of “trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance after warning.” This claim however, is entirely unavailing. Rightly or (probably) wrongly, B.W. was acquitt…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995)