JAMES CRIT ESTEP, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE (STATE)
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 probable cause existed for the arrest and the defendant was in lawful custody at the time of his escape.
The defendant was arrested for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, subsequently escaped from jail, and was charged under a statute f…
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
MILLS, Judge.
Estep seeks reversal of a judgment of conviction and sentence based on a jury verdict finding him guilty of the crime of escape.
Estep asserts that the judgment of conviction is fatally defective as the State failed to present evidence that at the time of the escape he was in lawful custody of a law enforcement official.
The owner of a car destroyed by fire informed an officer that a box of tools was stolen from his car the night before its destruction. Later the tools were located at a car lot operated by Estep’s father who advised the officer that his son had brought the tools to the lot. The tools were identified by the owner as the tools stolen from his car. In addition, a citizen informed the officer that Estep was the individual who set fire to the car. While confined to jail serving a sentence for violation of a municipal ordinance, Estep was arrested without a warrant, and charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony. Subsequently, Estep escaped from the jail.
An officer may arrest a person without a warrant if a felony has been committed and the officer reasonably believes the person committed it. Section 901.15(2), F.S.
Section 944.40, F.S., under which Estep was charged, provides that any prisoner confined in a jail who escapes from confinement shall be guilty of a felony in the second degree. Section 944.02(4), F.S., defines prisoner as any person who is under arrest and in lawful custody of any law enforcement official.
We are of the opinion that probable cause existed for the officer to arrest Es-tep without a warrant, and that Estep was in lawful custody at the time of his escape. It is uncontroverted that Estep escaped from a municipal jail to which he was confined.
The other point raised by Estep is without merit.
We affirm.
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Akers, 367 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…s of Section 944.40, Florida Statutes (1969). Brochu v. State, 258 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). Florida courts have interpreted the present escape statute to include confinement after arrest but prior to conviction and sentencing. Estep v. State, 318 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Such confinement is not limited to confinement in jail. Johnson v. State, 357 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). For conviction under the escape statute, the state need show only (1) the right to legal custody and (2) a conscious a…
-
McGEE v. State, 435 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…lly.” We have examined the cases relied upon by appellant on this point and find no conflict with the rule we apply 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 tri…
-
Williams v. State, 416 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…rence of lawful custody, has not met the test to support a criminal conviction. King v. State, 42 Fla. 260, 28 So. 206 (Fla.1900); Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Abbott v. State, 326 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Estep v. State, 318 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Maggard v. State, 226 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Fulford v. State, 113 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). A reversal based on insufficiency of the evidence precludes retrial because of the double jeopardy clause. Burks v. United…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence