WALTER LEE RATLIFF, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 court held that the 1982 amendments to Chapter 810, Florida Statutes, supersede the common-law definition of a dwelling, making a structure's design or suitability for habitation controlling over actual occupancy or intent to occupy.
Petitioner was convicted of burglary of a dwelling. The First District affirmed the conviction based on its prior holding in Perkins v. State. The Sup…
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 Burglary Of A Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Ratliff v. State, 668 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We accepted jurisdiction to answer the following question certified to be of great public importance:
DO THE 1982 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 810, FLORIDA STATUTES, SUPERSEDE THE COMMON-LAW DEFINITION OF A DWELLING, WHEREBY A STRUCTURE’S DESIGN OR SUITABILITY FOR HABITATION, RATHER THAN ACTUAL OCCUPANCY OR INTENT TO OCCUPY, IS CONTROLLING IN DETERMINING WHETHER A STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A DWELLING?
Id. at 1090-91.1
The First District affirmed petitioner’s conviction for burglary of a dwelling based on its holding in Perkins v. State, 680 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Id. at 1090. We recently approved the district court’s decision in Perkins, Perkins v. State, 682 So. 2d 1083 (Fla.1996), and answered in the affirmative the same certified question presented in this ease.
Accordingly, on the authority of Perkins, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision under review. We decline to address the additional issues raised by petitioner in his brief as they were not included in the question certified by the First District.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campanioni v. State, 699 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
-
Cary Brantley v. State, 708 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…in the appellant’s guidelines scoresheet and sentence are not readily ascertainable from the face of the record and are therefore not cognizable in this Rule 3.800(a) proceeding,1 State v. Montague, 682 So. 2d 1085 (Fla.1996); McCalister v. State, 682 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1996), approving McCalister v. State, 664 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995); Holland v. State, 672 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), review denied, 678 So. 2d 338 (Fla.1996), the order below denying reli…
-
McCalister v. State, 909 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. McCalister v. State, 682 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1996)(approving McCalister v. State, 664 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)).…
Authorities Cited
- Houston D. Perkins v. State, 682 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1996)
- Edwards v. State, 668 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)