Erskine v. State
This text of 23 So. 3d 1207 (Erskine 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.
Opinion
This case arose from an incident in which Erskine, driving a car not his own, was pursued by police through the streets of Miami-Dade County, and was apprehended at the end of a foot chase which began after he crashed the vehicle. In this appeal, he challenges convictions and sentences after a jury trial for misdemean- or trespass in a conveyance, as a lesser included offense of count I, grand theft of a vehicle, and as charged in the information, count II, fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, and count III, resisting an officer without violence.
Considering first the only point which concerns all three convictions, we find no error in the trial judge’s determination that the defense’s challenge of a prospective juror was pretextual in nature. See Braggs v. State, 13 So.3d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Lidiano v. State, 967 So.2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), review denied, 983 So.2d 1154 (Fla.2008); Pringle v. State, 792 So.2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 817 So.2d 849 (Fla.2002).
The conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude in violation of section 316.1935(3), Florida Statutes (2006),1 however, is reduced to a third degree felony under section 316.1935(1) because, (1) as in Gorsuch [1209]*1209v. State, 797 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001),2 there was no evidence that the police car involved in the chase in question had agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed, as required by section 316.1935(3), see also Jackson v. State, 818 So.2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and (2) the jury was instructed that the defendant could be convicted of the more serious offense if he attempted to flee after having been stopped as Erskine in fact did, which is not an element of subsection (3), see Anderson v. State, 780 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), but is encompassed in subsection (1). The cause is remanded for resentencing accordingly. See § 924.34, Fla. Stat. (2006).
No separate error is asserted in the misdemeanor convictions as to counts I and III.
Affirmed as modified, remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 So. 3d 1207, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16064, 2009 WL 3446389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erskine-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.