JOHN PATRICK MAGGARD, 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.
John Patrick Maggard was convicted of escape and of aiding another inmate's escape from the Palm Beach County Stockade. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his escape conviction but reversed his conviction for aiding an escape, holding that the state failed to prove the escaped person was in lawful custody at the time of the escape.
The court held that proof of lawful custody of the escaped person is an essential element of the crime of aiding an escape, and that the mere fact someone is in actual custody does not prove the lawfulness of that custody. The state presented insufficient evidence to establish that Williamson was lawfully confined at the time Maggard aided his escape.
“what the state overlooks is that the very existence of the crime depends upon the lawful nature of the confinement at the time of the escape”
Establishes that lawful confinement is a necessary element of the crime of aiding an escape, not merely a factor in determining punishment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaggard was charged with escaping from the Palm Beach County Stockade on April 18, 1967, under a felony conviction, and with aiding Paul Griffin Willi…
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 Lawful Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, John Patrick Maggard, was charged by an information filed in the Criminal Court of Record for Palm Beach County, Florida, in Case No. 67C-963 with having escaped on 18 April 1967 from confinement in the Palm Beach County Stockade under a felony conviction. Appellant was also charged by an information filed in the same court in Case No. 67C-994 with having aided one Paul Griffin Williamson to escape from the lawful custody of an employee of the Palm Beach County Stockade on 19 April 1967.
The appellant was tried on 4 'October 1967 in the Criminal Court of Record. The case was submitted to the jury which returned verdicts of guilty on each charge. A post-trial motion for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was made and denied along with a reserved motion for directed verdict. A separate adjudication was entered in each case. Following the entry of the judgments and the sentences, the appellant filed an appeal from both judgments. Although several points have been raised for our consideration, it is our opinion that only one requires discussion, and that point relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction for aiding the escape of Paul Griffin Williamson.
The appellant argues that proof of the reason for Williamson’s custody is an essential element of the crime. Appellant says also that it is necessary to show that the escaped person was in custody under a conviction at the time of the escape.
The state’s brief contains a rather remarkable answer to the appellant’s contention. The state says that it was not necessary to show the precise cause of the detention, “ * * * because punishment under Section 843.12 Fla.Stat., does not hinge upon the nature of the offense of the escapee. * * * ” Of course it is true that the nature of the punishment under Section 843.12, F.S.1967, F.S.A., for aiding an escape does not hinge upon the nature of the confinement of the escaped person, but what the state overlooks is that the very existence of the crime depends upon the lawful nature of the confinement at the time of the escape. While it is not necessary to show that the escaped person was being held under a conviction at the time of his escape, it is necessary under the pertinent statute to prove that the escaped person was in lawful custody at the time of the escape. See Section 843.12, F.S.1967, F.S.A., and King v. State, 1900, 42 Fla. 260, 28 So. 206.
The only direct testimony with respect to Williamson was that of Eugene Handy and Harry Brown. Mr. Handy, a guard employed by the Palm Beach County Stockade, simply testified that Williamson was in his work crew and escaped therefrom on 19 April 1967 with the aid of the appellant. Mr. Brown, a deputy sheriff of Palm Beach County, testified he apprehended appellant and Williamson after they had fled the work crew. The only other testimony relating to Williamson was that contained in the testimony of Richard Lee Sheets, a detective with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. Mr. Sheets testified that the appellant had admitted aiding Williamson and that, according to the ap*34pellant, Williamson was serving time in the stockade. This testimony has no greater probative value with respect to the lawfulness of the confinement of Williamson than the testimony of Mr. Brown and Mr. Handy. The mere fact that someone is actually in custody is not proof of the lawful nature of that custody. Fulford v. State, Fla.App. 1959, 113 So.2d 572. We conclude that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Williamson was in lawful custody at the time appellant was shown to have aided his escape; therefore, the evidence was insufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction for aiding Williamson’s escape.
The judgment in Palm Beach County Criminal Court of Record Case No. 67C-963 involving the escape charge is affirmed. The judgment and sentence in Palm Beach County Criminal Court of Record Case No. 67C-994 is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Williams, 444 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1984)…old that the jury was unreasonable, as a matter of law, in doing so. I am aware that other district courts have held to the contrary in similar situations. Two such cases are Abbott v. State, 326 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), and Maggard v. State, 226 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). However, I feel those opinions and the majority opinion invade the province of the jury. 416 So. 2d at 496-97. The trial court correctly denied the petitioner’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, we quash the decis…
-
McGEE v. State, 435 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…here. Cf. Abigando v. State, 239 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Abbott v. State, 326 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Estep v. State, 318 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Fulford v. State, 113 [*859] So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1959); Haggard v. State, 226 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Williams v. State, 416 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). III. Turning to other issues, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, nor in the court’s ruling on the state’s “late disclosure…
-
Abbott v. State, 326 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…person. Proof that the escaped person was in lawful custody is necessary to a conviction for aiding escape. Evidence that the escaped person was in custody, without more, is insufficient to establish that he was in lawful custody. Maggard. v. State, 226 So. 2d 32 (Fla.App. 4th, 1969). [*205] In the case before us, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction. Reversed with directions to discharge the defendant. BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- King v. State, 42 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1900)
- Fulford v. State, 113 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)