Fulford v. State, 583
| Decision Date | 08 July 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 583,583 |
| Citation | 113 So.2d 572 |
| Parties | John Cornelius FULFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John C. Fulford, in pro. per.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Odis M. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
John Cornelius Fulford was tried and convicted of the offense of escape while serving a felony sentence. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed therefor.
Sec. 954.30, F.S.1955, F.S.A., 1 under which appellant was charged provides as follows
Appellant contends that the State failed to prove at the trial that at the time of his alleged escape, he was incarcerated under a charge or conviction of a felony. We are of the opinion that the record bears out his contention, and that because of such omission the judgment and sentence appealed from must be reversed.
At the trial the prosecuting attorney introduced into evidence a copy of an information filed in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida, in the June Term of 1954, charging John Cornelius Fulford with a felony, copies of excerpts from the minutes of the said Criminal Court of Record indicating that John Cornelius Fulford was adjudged guilty of a felony as charged in said information and sentenced on October 5, 1954, and a copy of the commitment of John Cornelius Fulford to the Florida State Prison System. No evidence was introduced connecting the accused with the John Cornelius Fulford named in the said copies of the information, minutes, and commitment papers which were received in evidence.
To support a conviction under Sec. 954.30, F.S., 1955, F.S.A., the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused escaped from incarceration under a charge or conviction of a felony or a misdemeanor. Identity of name was not sufficient to establish the identity of accused with that of the John Cornelius Fulford who was previously committed to the Florida State Prison System by reason of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 80-1368
...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. Unite......
-
People v. Neal
...in other jurisdictions that have reached contrary results. Harding v. Arkansas, 248 Ark. 1240, 455 S.W.2d 695 (1970); Fulford v. Florida, 113 So.2d 572 (Fla.App., 1959). We express no opinion regarding those decisions rejecting an inference of lawfulness from evidence of incarceration in a ......
-
State v. Fulkerson
...of Florida cases have stated that for one to be convicted of the crime of escape, he must be Lawfully confined. E.g., Fulford v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1959, 113 So.2d 572; Maggard v. State, Fla.App.4th, 1969, 226 So.2d 32; and Abigando v. State, Fla.App.1st, 1970, 239 So.2d 646. The Supreme C......
-
Harding v. State
...that defendant was incarcerated under a charge or conviction of felony at the time of the alleged escape, the court in Fulford v. State (1959, Fla.App.) 113 So.2d 572, said that proof of lawful custody is an essential of the crime of escape, and that the warden's testimony that defendant ha......