HENRY VERNON ROTHROCK, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Henry Vernon Rothrock was convicted of escape under Florida law for leaving custody while awaiting trial on another charge. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that under the statute in effect at the time, escape required that the person be a prisoner who had been convicted and sentenced, not merely someone awaiting trial.
No. A person cannot be convicted of escape under the statute unless they were a prisoner who had been convicted and sentenced. Merely being charged with a crime and held in custody is insufficient for an escape conviction.
[1] A conviction for escape requires that the defendant be a prisoner who has been convicted and sentenced, not merely charged with a crime.
[2] A no contest plea is invalid if the defendant could not have been convicted of the underlying offense at the time of the plea.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it was essential that the person so charged was a prisoner who had been "convicted and sentenced" and that it was not sufficient to show that at the time of his escape defendant was merely "charged" with the crime for which he was then being held”
Establishes the statutory requirement that escape applies only to those convicted and sentenced, not to those merely awaiting trial
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 23, 1970, Rothrock was charged with escape. On March 10, 1971, he entered a plea of no contest. On April 27, 1971, he was adjudicated guil…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Escape cases and more on FLexlaw
SHOLTS, Judge.
On December 23, 1970, an information was filed in the Court of Record of Bro-ward County, florida charging appellant with escape under § 944.40, F.S.1969, F.S. A. He pled no contest thereto on March 10, 1971. Appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to a term of six (6) years in the Florida State prison on April 27, 1971. An attempted direct appeal was dismissed as untimely, but we granted full appellate review on January 12, 1972, on petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on authority of Hollingshead v. Wainwright, Fla. 1967, 194 So. 2d 577.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in accepting his no contest plea on four grounds:
1. Lack of voluntariness in that the trial court failed to inquire about threats made against the appellant or promises made in inducement for his plea.
2. Failure of the trial court to warn appellant that' in pleading no contest, he would be giving up his privilege against self-incrimination.
3. Failure of the trial court to advise appellant of the maximum possible punishment.
4. In accepting the appellant’s no contest plea in any case inasmuch as he had not been “convicted” of any crime but was merely awaiting trial for another offense at the time he escaped.
Appellant’s contention that he could not be convicted of escape because he was in custody awaiting trial on another charge has merit.
This court in State v. Benjamin, Fla.App.1972, 267 So. 3d 348, cert. dism, Fla., 270 So. 2d 20, and Van Den Bliek v. State, Fla.App.1973, 281 So. 2d 218 agreed with the decision in Brochu v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 258 So. 2d 286, which held that in accordance with the law in effect at the time of the escape, it was essential that the person so charged was a prisoner who had been “convicted and sentenced” and that it was not sufficient to show that at the time of his escape defendant was merely “charged” with the crime for which he was then being held. It therefore appears that appellant could not have been convicted of the crime to which he plead “no contest”.
In view of the court’s holding on Point 4 above, we find it unnecessary to comment on the other three points raised by the appellant. The judgment and sentence are hereby reversed.
OWEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawson v. State, 312 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…ishable because of the limited nature of the self-help theory. It is not the validity of the conviction that is crucial, it is the fact that defendant was validly incarcerated under a presumably valid conviction and sentence. Rothrock v. Wainwright, 286 So. 2d 240 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1973). Though resisting arrest is proper when there are no grounds for the arrest, the cases so holding are distinguishable. Once under legal incarceration a defendant must only avail himself of help through the court system. In addi…
Authorities Cited
- Cleveland Hollingshead v. Louie L. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1967)
- Brochu v. State, 258 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- VAN DEN Bliek v. State, 281 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Pasley v. Grant Sholk Constr. Co., 270 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1972)
- Cap. Treads & Cas. Reciprocal Exch. of the Dodson Ins. Grp. v. Russ, 270 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1972)