Ratliff v. State, 668 So. 2d 1090

PER CURIAM.

Walter 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, 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.

AFFIRMED.

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

Case Details

Case Name: Ratliff v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Mar 5, 1996

Citations: 668 So. 2d 1090; 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2044; 1996 WL 91541; No. 95-267

Docket Number: No. 95-267

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.