Butler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Butler v. State

834 So. 2d 351, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 83, 2003 WL 52593

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 8, 2003

DocketNo. 4D01-2813

StatusPublished

This text of 834 So. 2d 351 (Butler v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Butler v. State, 834 So. 2d 351, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 83, 2003 WL 52593 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the court on the defendant’s motion for rehearing. We deny the rehearing, but withdraw this court’s previously issued decision and substitute the following.

The defendant appeals his conviction for burglary of an occupied dwelling and argues that the trial court committed fundamental error by including the “remaining in” language in the burglary instruction. We have reviewed the record and find that the evidence does not support the existence of consent to enter the victim’s apartment. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s entry as expressed in his statement to the police, do not provide an “innocent explanation”. See Couzo v. State, 830 So.2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) and Miller v. State, 828 So.2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Thus, the “remaining in” language was mere surplusage under the facts of this case and did not constitute fundamental error. See also Johnekins v. State, 823 So.2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

The defendant’s conviction is affirmed.

STONE, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the court on the defendant’s motion for rehearing. We deny the rehearing, but withdraw this court’s previously issued decision and substitute the following.

The defendant appeals his conviction for burglary of an occupied dwelling and argues that the trial court committed fundamental error by including the “remaining in” language in the burglary instruction. We have reviewed the record and find that the evidence does not support the existence of consent to enter the victim’s apartment. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s entry as expressed in his statement to the police, do not provide an “innocent explanation”. See Couzo v. State, 830 So.2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) and Miller v. State, 828 So.2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Thus, the “remaining in” language was mere surplusage under the facts of this case and did not constitute fundamental error. See also Johnekins v. State, 823 So.2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

The defendant’s conviction is affirmed.

STONE, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

834 So. 2d 351, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 83, 2003 WL 52593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack