Sanner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sanner v. State

63 So. 3d 934, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10176, 2011 WL 2555393

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 29, 2011

DocketNo. 4D09-2179

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 So. 3d 934 (Sanner 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

Sanner v. State, 63 So. 3d 934, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10176, 2011 WL 2555393 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

On Motion fob Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following in its place.

Appellant challenges his conviction for fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer under section 316.1935(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), claiming that the state failed to prove an essential element of the crime, namely that a patrol vehicle in the chase had “agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle.... ” We agree that the state failed to put on proof of this statutory element, requiring reversal. See Ers[935]*935kine v. State, 23 So.3d 1207, 1208-09 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Jackson v. State, 818 So.2d 539, 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Gorsuch v. State, 797 So.2d 649, 650-51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). We therefore reverse with directions to reduce the conviction to a third degree felony under 316.1935(1).

We affirm as to appellant’s challenge to his habitual offender qualification offenses, finding that the state sufficiently proved them and that appellant’s attorney conceded that appellant qualified for habitual offender status.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

WARNER, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

On Motion fob Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following in its place.

Appellant challenges his conviction for fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer under section 316.1935(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), claiming that the state failed to prove an essential element of the crime, namely that a patrol vehicle in the chase had “agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle.... ” We agree that the state failed to put on proof of this statutory element, requiring reversal. See Ers[935]*935kine v. State, 23 So.3d 1207, 1208-09 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Jackson v. State, 818 So.2d 539, 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Gorsuch v. State, 797 So.2d 649, 650-51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). We therefore reverse with directions to reduce the conviction to a third degree felony under 316.1935(1).

We affirm as to appellant’s challenge to his habitual offender qualification offenses, finding that the state sufficiently proved them and that appellant’s attorney conceded that appellant qualified for habitual offender status.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

WARNER, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 So. 3d 934, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 10176, 2011 WL 2555393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanner-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack