Ratliff v. State

Decided March 5, 1996

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1996-03-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“DO THE 1982 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 810, FLORIDA STATUTES, SUPERSEDE THE COMMON-LAW DEFINITION OF A DWELLING, WHEREBY A STRUCTURE’S DESIGN OR SUITABILITY FOR HABITATION, RATHER THAN ACTUAL OCCUPANCY OR INTENT TO OCCUPY, IS CONTROLLING IN DETERMINING WHETHER A STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A DWELLING?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 682 So. 2d 556 - Ratliff v. State

Relies on Perkins v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-03-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 2013

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Walter Lee Ratliff appeals his conviction for burglary of a dwelling, arguing that the building in question, a newly built but unoccupied home, was not a dwelling for purposes of section 810.02(3), Florida Statutes. See § 810.011(2), Fla.Stat. We reject this argument and affirm the conviction based on the holding in Perkins v. State, 630 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), cause dismissed, reh’g granted, No. 86,248, — So.2d — (Fla. Dec. 20, 1995). As in Perkins, we certify to the Supreme Court the following question of great public importance:

DO THE 1982 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 810, FLORIDA STATUTES, SUPERSEDE THE COMMON-LAW DEFINITION OF A DWELLING, *1091WHEREBY A STRUCTURE’S DESIGN OR SUITABILITY FOR HABITATION, RATHER THAN ACTUAL OCCUPANCY OR INTENT TO OCCUPY, IS CONTROLLING IN DETERMINING WHETHER A STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A DWELLING.

¶2AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.