TIMOTHY LAMONT HOWELL, 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 court held that the trial court correctly denied the appellant's motion to dismiss and granted the state's motion in limine, affirming the judgment and sentence for escape.
[1] A defendant is sufficiently on notice of potential penalties for escape from a work release program if they signed paperwork prior to participation informing them of the…
[2] A prisoner who willfully fails to remain within the extended limits of confinement or to return within the prescribed time to the place of confinement is deemed an escape…
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 intelligenceAppellant was charged with escape from a county work release program for failing to return on time. He argued he lacked sufficient notice of the poten…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence for escape from a county work release program.
Appellant was charged with escape when he failed to return to the Escambia County work release center at the appointed time. He moved to dismiss the charge arguing he did not have sufficient notice that he risked a 15-year prison term for not timely returning to the center. The trial court correctly denied the motion because Appellant had signed paperwork pri- or to starting work release notifying him he faced a penalty of up to 15 years in prison for escape. Even if the paperwork *528did not specifically reference section 944.40, Florida Statutes, which sets forth the punishment for escape, Appellant was sufficiently on notice he could go to prison for escaping while on work release.
Following the court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to dismiss, the state moved in limine to preclude Appellant from arguing to the jury that he could not be guilty of escape because he was not confined while on work release. In granting the state’s motion, the trial court again ruled correctly. Section 951.24, Florida Statutes, which authorizes county work release programs, states that “[a]ny prisoner who willfully fails to remain within the extended limits of his or her confinement or to return within the time prescribed to the place of confinement shall be deemed an escapee from custody and shall be subject to punishment as prescribed by law.” § 951.24(4), Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added). Appellant’s purported defense is flatly contradicted by the plain language of the statute, and thus, contrary to law. See Early v. State, 678 So.2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (appellant’s failure to timely return to work release facility constituted escape under section 951.24(4), Florida Statutes).
AFFIRMED.
HAWKES, C.J., PADOVANO and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wactor v. State, 65 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ial court correctly denied appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, as it was in actuality an untimely motion for postconviction relief from his conviction and sentence, which were final in 1996. It is also without merit. See Howell v. State, 45 So. 3d 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Early v. State, 678 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). WARNER, POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Early v. State, 678 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)