State v. Vance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Vance

218 So. 3d 499, 2017 WL 1967413, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6821

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 12, 2017

DocketCase No. 5D16-503

StatusPublished

This text of 218 So. 3d 499 (State v. Vance) 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

State v. Vance, 218 So. 3d 499, 2017 WL 1967413, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6821 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order dismissing the information and remand this cause for further proceedings. See Poillot v. State, 200 So.3d 743 (Fla. 2016) (holding that participation in Work Release Program is still confinement such that deviation from Work Release Program established prima facie case of escape under section 944.40, Florida Statutes (2014)); Early v. State, 678 So.2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (holding that defendant’s failure to return to Work Release Facility as ordered constituted escape under section 944.40, Florida Statutes (1995)). Appellee’s alternative argument that his confinement was “invalid” was not preserved for review by this court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ., and ' JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order dismissing the information and remand this cause for further proceedings. See Poillot v. State, 200 So.3d 743 (Fla. 2016) (holding that participation in Work Release Program is still confinement such that deviation from Work Release Program established prima facie case of escape under section 944.40, Florida Statutes (2014)); Early v. State, 678 So.2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (holding that defendant’s failure to return to Work Release Facility as ordered constituted escape under section 944.40, Florida Statutes (1995)). Appellee’s alternative argument that his confinement was “invalid” was not preserved for review by this court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ., and ' JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 So. 3d 499, 2017 WL 1967413, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vance-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack