BRIAN HUTCHINSON, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Hutchinson's conviction for escape after he fled the courtroom following a guilty verdict on unrelated charges. The court held that a defendant ordered into custody by the trial judge, even before being physically handcuffed, is in lawful custody and can be convicted of escape if he intentionally leaves the area.
Hutchinson can be properly convicted of escape. A defendant in lawful custody need not be physically handcuffed to be considered in custody for purposes of the escape statute; the state need only show (1) the right to legal custody and (2) a conscious and intentional act of leaving the established area of custody.
[1] A person is in legal custody for the purposes of an escape conviction once a law enforcement official has asserted authority and control, even if the process of physical…
[2] To convict a defendant of escape, the state must prove the existence of legal custody and a conscious, intentional act by the defendant to leave that custody.
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“the legislature intended that any person under arrest and in the lawful custody of a law enforcement official who escapes while being transported to or from a place of confinement shall be guilty of a felony.”
Establishes the statutory basis for escape liability under Florida law, approved in State v. Ramsey
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHutchinson was on pretrial bond and stood trial on unrelated criminal charges. After the jury announced a guilty verdict, the trial judge ordered the …
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
STONE, J.
We affirm Hutchinson’s conviction and sentence on the charge of escape on our conclusion that the trial court did not err in denying either his motion to dismiss or his motion for judgment of acquittal.
The facts supporting the escape conviction occurred when Hutchinson stood trial on unrelated criminal charges. After the jury announced its verdict of guilty, the trial judge ordered the court deputy to take Hutchinson, who had been on pretrial bond, into custody. Upon hearing the court’s order, the court deputy stepped between Hutchinson and his attorney and attempted to take Hutchinson’s hand to place him in handcuffs. At that time, Hutchinson leaped over the railing and ran out of the courtroom. He was tackled in the hallway, restrained, and later charged with escape.
In State v. Ramsey, 475 So. 2d 671 (Fla.1985), the Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant, who had been stopped for a traffic infraction, had been informed by the deputy that he was under arrest, and had been told to place his hands on the truck of the patrol car, but who had escaped prior to being handcuffed, could properly be convicted of escape. See id. The court approved the district court decision in State v. Akers, 367 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), which, construing sections 944.40 and 944.02(5), Florida Statutes, in pari materia^ held that the legislature intended that any person under arrest and in the lawful custody of a law enforcement official who escapes while being transported to or from a place of confinement shall be guilty of a felony.
... For conviction under the escape statute, the state need show only (1) the right to legal custody and (2) a conscious and intentional act of the defendant in leaving the established area of such custody.
Ramsey, 475 So. 2d at 672 (quoting Akers).
As in Ramsey, Hutchinson was in custody, notwithstanding that the deputy had not completed the act of acquiring total physical control at the instant of escape. Hence, the crime of escape was correctly charged and proven.
As to the sentencing issue raised, we affirm as Hutchinson failed to preserve this issue by filing a motion in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Applewhite v. State, 874 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…rest, ran from scene and was properly charged with escape, notwithstanding that he had not been restrained and arrest procedure had not progressed to point where officer had removed handcuffs from their carrying place). See also Hutchinson v. State, 771 So. 2d 1287 (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…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ramsey, 475 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Akers, 367 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)