Hebert v. State
| Citation | 962 So.2d 1068 |
| Decision Date | 12 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D06-1261.,4D06-1261. |
| Parties | Kenneth Nelson HEBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Dea Abramschmitt, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION
Having considered the appellant's "Motion for Rehearing/Clarification," we agree that the opinion dated July 5, 2007, contains a scrivener's error. We therefore withdraw our prior opinion and issue the following in its place.
Kenneth Hebert was tried by jury and found guilty of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with the intent to commit a felony, i.e., escape (count I), escape (count II), aggravated battery with a deadly weapon (count III), and resisting an officer with violence (count IV). While Hebert has raised a number of issues on appeal, we write to address only two—his claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal directed to the charges of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with the intent to commit a felony (escape) and escape. We find merit in Hebert's argument and thus reverse his convictions as to counts I and II.
Hebert and a man named Wesley Alan Shelton were domestic partners and shared a home. The charges against Hebert arose out of the events that unfolded following an unspecified dispute or argument between him and Shelton. When Shelton returned home the morning after the argument, Hebert attacked him and attempted to strangle him with a belt. Shelton fled and called police.
After knocking and speaking with a roommate of Hebert and Shelton, Deputy Minella entered the residence and saw Hebert standing in a hallway. The deputy saw Hebert holding what he believed to be a shotgun, told Hebert he was under arrest and instructed him to put down the gun. The deputy then fled the home. Next, the officer heard breaking glass and observed the butt of a rifle being used to break the glass out of a window in the home. The deputy kept shouting to Hebert that he was under arrest and to put the gun down. According to the deputy, rather than comply, Hebert exited the residence and pointed the gun at him. The officer fired two shots. Hebert fled into a nearby home that was under construction. The deputy continued to yell for Hebert to put down the gun.
Hebert exited the home and pointed the gun at the officer a second time. The deputy fired two more shots. Hebert ran and the chase continued. Hebert then raised his gun at the officer a third time. The deputy fired another shot. This time, the bullet grazed Hebert and he went down. The deputy handcuffed Hebert, discovering the gun was not a shotgun, but a BB gun. In a taped statement to police, Hebert conceded the officer had done nothing wrong and admitted hearing the officer instruct him to come out and to let the officer see his hands. Hebert also indicated he "believed" he heard the officer tell him he was under arrest.
The crime of "escape" is defined to include the circumstance when a "prisoner" "being transported to or from a place of confinement" "escapes . . . from such confinement." § 944.40, Fla. Stat. (2005). A "prisoner" is defined for purposes of chapter 944 to include "any person who is under . . . criminal arrest and in the lawful custody of any law enforcement official." § 944.02(6), Fla. Stat. (2005). Our supreme court has thus held the escape statute criminalizes an individual's flight following an arrest, reasoning that "`transportation to a place of confinement' begins at the time the suspect is placed under arrest.'" State v. Ramsey, 475 So.2d 671, 672 (Fla.1985) (); see also Kyser v. State, 533 So.2d 285, 287 (Fla.1988) (). There can be no escape from a mere detention. See Pollen v. State, 834 So.2d 380, 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
The issue in this case is whether Hebert was ever placed under arrest. A valid arrest exists, such that an escape conviction can be sustained, when the following four factors are present:
"(1) A purpose or intention to effect an arrest under a real or pretended authority; (2) An actual or constructive seizure or detention of the person to be arrested by a person having present power to control the person arrested; (3) A communication by the arresting officer to the person whose arrest is sought, of an intention or purpose then and there to effect an arrest; and (4) An understanding by the person whose arrest is sought that it is the intention of the arresting officer then and there to arrest and detain him."
Kyser, 533 So.2d at 287 (quoting Melton v. State, 75 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla.1954)); see also Sweeney v. State, 633 So.2d 66, 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Hebert cannot and does not claim that there was any insufficiency in the evidence regarding factors (1), (3), and (4). Deputy Minella, who was in uniform and driving a marked patrol car, testified he repeatedly told Hebert he was under arrest, to put the gun down, and to stop. Moreover, in his taped statement to police, Hebert acknowledged he was aware Minella was a police officer and that the officer told him he was under arrest.
What Hebert does argue is that there was insufficient evidence regarding that portion of factor two requiring "[a]n actual or constructive seizure or detention of the person to be arrested." Hebert relies upon California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991), wherein the Court stated:
An arrest requires either physical force . . . or, where that is absent, submission to the assertion of authority.
499 U.S. at 626-27, 111 S.Ct. 1547 (quoting Perkins, The Law of Arrest, 25 Iowa L.Rev. 201, 206 (1940) (footnotes omitted)) (bolded emphasis added); see also Hollinger v. State, 620 So.2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 1993) ().
Hebert contends Hodari's definition of an "arrest" applies in assessing whether a suspect has been "arrested" for the purpose of sustaining an escape conviction and the evidence failed to demonstrate either a touching or a submission to authority on his part. The State, on the other hand, insists (1) that Hodari's holding that there can be no arrest absent a physical touching or submission on the part of the suspect was made in the Fourth Amendment context for the purpose of determining whether evidence was subject to suppression and (2) that Florida's courts are not bound to apply Hodari's holding in determining whether there has been an arrest for purposes of sustaining a conviction under the escape statute. Regardless of whether Florida's courts are "bound" to apply Hodari in the escape context, this court has twice done so.
In Sweeney v. State, 633 So.2d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), after hearing the sound of glass breaking and an alarm, an officer found the defendant hiding under a stairwell. Without identifying himself as an officer, informing the defendant why he was being stopped or instructing the defendant that he was under arrest, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKinnon v. State
...had constructively seized McKinnon and had the present power to control him (element (2)). McKinnon's reliance on Hebert v. State, 962 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) is misplaced. In Hebert, the deputy entered Hebert's residence in response to a domestic violence call. The deputy saw Hebert......
- State v. Hebert
-
Spann v. State
...of the arresting officer then and there to arrest and detain him." Id. (emphasis added). We have considered Hebert v. State, 962 So.2d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), and deem it distinguishable. In Hebert, a deputy, called to Hebert's home, while standing outside, saw Hebert standing in a ......
-
Crimes
...yells at defendant, who is holding a gun, that he is under arrest, and the defendant flees, he does not commit escape. Hebert v. State, 962 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) Defendant’s act of leaving his work site while on work release does not constitute escape. Crumity v. State, 922 So. 2d......