Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...een in violation of section 800.04(2), Florida Statutes (1997), eight counts of handling and fondling a child under the age of sixteen in violation of section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes (1997), one count of interference with custody in violation of section 787.03, Florida Statutes (1997), and one count of seduction of a child via computer in violation of section 847.0135(3), Florida Statutes (1997)....

...ause of action does not conflict with any existing statutes. In fact, this civil *1045 cause of action is consistent with the criminal statutory prohibition against "interference with custody," which is generally classified as a third degree felony. § 787.03, Fla....

...ild(ren). Neither party shall remove the minor child(ren) from the State of Florida, the jurisdiction of this court, prior to the hearing on this Temporary Injunction. Violation of this custody order may constitute a misdemeanor of the first degree, section 787.03, or a felony of the third degree, section 787.04, Florida Statutes....

...Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Barbra Amron Weisberg, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. WARNER, Judge. The appellant was convicted of three counts of interference with the custody of a minor, in violation of section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (1993), for taking her three minor children from the custody of their foster parent....

...If the state does not offer evidence that is inconsistent with the defendant's hypothesis of innocence, then the state's evidence would be insufficient as a matter of law. See id. at 188-89. The jury convicted Catalina of interference with custody, in violation of section 787.03(1), which provides, in pertinent part: Whoever, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly takes or entices, or aids, abets, hires, or otherwise procures another to take or entice, any child 17 years of age or under or any incom...

...(b) Confinement of a child under the age of 13 is against his will within the meaning of this section if such confinement is without the consent of his parent or legal guardian." [3] We express no opinion as to whether Johnson could have been convicted of interference with custody under section 787.03, as he was not charged with that crime....

...The Court notes that this was technically not a case of "kidnapping” because John Alex was over the age of 13 and there was no force or felonious intent involved. See Fla. Stat. § 787.01 . Instead, the violation here was most likely "Interference with Custody.” Fla. Stat. § 787.03 ....

...nt 3 and counts 5 through 12; and we reverse the sentences and remand with directions for resentencing. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] Gisi was also convicted of interference with custody, § 787.03, Fla....

...ond degree felony; but we quash the sentence for the third degree felony and remand for entry of a legal sentence. AFFIRMED in part; QUASH sentence for third degree felony and REMAND for resentencing. GRIFFIN, C.J., and ANTOON, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 787.03, Fla....

...01(1), Florida Statutes (1993), the Florida statute that defines and identifies the natural guardians of children. [1] On October 4, 1993, the state filed an information charging Earl with one count of *298 Interference With Custody, in violation of section 787.03, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...The lower court's order of dismissal was based on an order from a court in another state relinquishing custody of the children to Adkins and Earl. The lower court concluded that because that court order existed determining Earl had a right to custody, he could not have violated section 787.03....

...We agree with the state that the lower court's declaration that section 744.301(1), Florida Statutes is unconstitutional should be vacated. There are several reasons for our decision. First, resolution of this case does not require a declaration that section 744.301 is unconstitutional. Section 787.03, Florida Statutes, under which Earl was charged, relates to interference with custody....

...We note, however, that the statutes on which Badalich was based have been amended. It appears that section 744.301(1), which previously defined guardianship in terms of custody, is no longer the key to an interference claim. [2] Although very poorly written, it appears that subsection (2) of section 787.03, added in 1987, is designed to govern the crime of interference with custody by a parent....

...Count one of the state's amended information charged the appellee, Michael Badalich, with false imprisonment of Nancy Marie Badalich, a child under the age of thirteen, in violation of section 787.02, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984) [1] Count two charges Badalich with interference with custody in violation of section 787.03, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...The trial court granted the motion and explained its rationale in a detailed order, which provides in pertinent part: ISSUES I. BASED ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, IS THERE A LEGAL BASIS TO CHARGE THE DEFENDANT WITH A VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. 787.02, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, and FLA. STAT. 787.03, INTERFERENCE WITH CUSTODY? The State argues that the child was in the lawful custody of the mother, MARY L....

...petent." Since the mother of a child born out of wedlock is its natural guardian, and a guardian is one to whom the law has entrusted lawful custody, anyone without that lawful custody, including a natural parent, can be guilty of interference under section 787.03. The wording of section 787.03(1) refers to lawful custody, and it is apparent that the legislature, in enacting this proscription against interference with that custody, intended this misdemeanor offense for the protection of such custodian....

...n if such confinement is without the consent of his parent or legal guardian. (2) Whoever commits the offense of false imprisonment shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. [2] Section 787.03, Florida Statutes reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Interference with custody....

...Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Aubin Wade Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. DELL, Judge. Muneer Khan appeals from his convictions and sentences for interfering with custody of a child in violation of section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), and removing a minor from the state contrary to a court order in violation of section 787.04(1), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...court order. A jury found him guilty of both offenses. The court sentenced appellant to two consecutive five year prison terms, suspended four years of the sentence for the violation of section 787.04(1) and the entire sentence for the violation of section 787.03(1), and placed him on probation for consecutive four and five year terms. Appellant argues that he could not be convicted and sentenced for violations of section 787.03(1) [1] and section 787.04(1) [2] because both offenses are based on the same core conduct and the dual convictions violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy....

...dy principles." Gibbs, 698 So.2d at 1210; see also Anderson, 695 So.2d at 310-11. Although each offense charged in this case involves a separate statutory section, both crimes arise out of the single act of unlawfully taking a child. As noted above, section 787.03(1) punishes one who unlawfully takes a minor child from the custody of her parent, and section 787.04(1) punishes one who takes a child and removes the child from the state contrary to a court order....

...Because both offenses seek to punish the same underlying act, appellant's dual convictions cannot stand. See Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.; Gibbs, 698 So.2d at 1209-10. Finally, we need not address the scrivener's error in the written order of probation since we reversed appellant's conviction and sentence pursuant to section 787.03(1). Accordingly, we affirm appellant's conviction and sentence pursuant to section 787.04(1). We reverse appellant's conviction for the violation of section 787.03(1) and remand to vacate his conviction and sentence on this charge. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. WARNER, J., and PARIENTE, BARBARA J., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...The State challenges the trial court's order dismissing an information against Larry Daniel Jones on the basis of double jeopardy. Because the Florida charge is not barred under the dual sovereign exception to double jeopardy, we reverse. Jones was charged with interference with child custody under section 787.03, Florida Statutes (1993), resulting from an incident where he took his son from Florida to Minnesota and concealed the child from the mother....

...g with her to Las Vegas, Nevada, and then back to Florida, where he was eventually apprehended (with S.F.) at his sister's home in Dania Beach. The State then amended its information, adding a charge of interfering with child custody in violation of section 787.03, Florida Statutes (2003). That statute contains two relevant subsections. In pertinent part, section 787.03(1) makes it unlawful for any person to take a child from the custody of his or her parents or lawful custodian, absent lawful authority to do so. Section 787.03(2), in relevant part, makes it unlawful for any parent or lawful custodian of a child, to take the child with malicious intent to deprive another parent or lawful custodian of that person's legal right to custody of the child....

...Moseley never objected to the defect in the information, and the information was never amended. The jury was instructed on the elements of the *552 crime outlined in subsection (1), and Moseley was convicted of that charge. In essence, Moseley was charged with violating section 787.03(2), but was convicted of violating section 787.03(1)....

...In September, 1995, a violation of probation was filed charging Martin with violating his probation by having carnal intercourse with a person under the age of 18 in violation of section 794.05, Florida Statutes (1995), and interfering with custody of a child contrary to section 787.03, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...5th DCA 1989), this court upheld the conviction of a father who merely avoided his responsibility under a custody order to return the child after visitation to the mother for six weeks. The father moved from motel to motel in Florida but always used his own name. He was found guilty of violating the criminal provisions of section 787.03, Florida Statutes, which prohibits the concealment of a child from the custodial parent if one knows of the order granting custody....

...Clark, 35 So.3d 989, 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). The Mother’s argument on this point is well taken. The final judgment modifying the prior order on parental responsibility, visitation, and timesharing is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. C., D. Contempt and Section 787.03, Florida Statutes As noted, the Mother knowingly violated the Florida court’s November 19, 2010, *261 order that she was not to remove the youngest child from Monroe County. The Mother’s claim that she was not afforded due process (before the court ruled on the motion for contempt) is not persuasive. The Mother has not yet been convicted of a violation of section 787.03, Florida Statutes (2011), “Interference with custody,” at least upon the record before us....

...We conclude that the error was not fundamental. Because the defendant did not timely object in the trial court, before the error occurred, he did not preserve the error for appeal. Valentin Rodas was charged with interfering with the custody of a parent or guardian, in violation of section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...rt to re-sentence Powell within the recommended range provided by the guidelines. Williams . ERVIN and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . § 794.01 l(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1984). . § 787.01(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1984). . § 800.04, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1984). . § 787.03, Fla.Stat....

...We therefore reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the re-filed information and remand for further proceedings. The defendant, Ryan Charles Lindemuth, was charged by information with one count of interference with the custody of a minor in violation of section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (2014)....

...facts not provided by the defendant in his sworn motion to dismiss and asserting that these facts, along with the facts alleged in the defendant’s motion to dismiss, established a prima facie case of interference with the custody of a minor in violation of section 787.03(1)....

...Ryan Charles Lindemuth appeals the trial court’s conviction and sentence. We affirm, as the trial court did not err in its use of the definition of the word “entice” in its jury instruction on the charge of interfering with the custody of a minor, pursuant to section 787.03(1), Florida Statute (2014). Lindemuth was arrested and charged by Information with one count of interfering with the custody of a minor....

...Gregis’s mother, Angela Gregis, testified that she gave her son permission to go to his friend’s house after school and that he did not have permission to get into Lindemuth’s car. Lindemuth was thereafter arrested and charged with one count of interfering with the custody of a minor, under section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (2014)....

... On appeal, Lindemuth contends, in part, that he committed no crime because the statute is inapplicable to the evidence the jury heard, and the jury instruction’s definition of “entice” led the jury to erroneously convict him. We disagree. Section 787.03(1) provides: Whoever, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly takes or entices, or aids, abets, hires, or otherwise procures another to take or entice, any minor or any incompetent person from the custody o...

...mpetent person, or any other lawful custodian commits the offense of interference with custody and commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. We agree with the State that section 787.03(1) applies to a situation such as the one before us, where a stranger attempts to get a minor into his car by offering him money. The statute does not require the minor to be physically taken from his parents’ custody. Section 787.03(1) prohibits interference with parental custody by a person who is not a parent or lawful custodian of the minor child in question, without the lawful authority to do so....

...2d 1157, 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). As such, parental custody is not limited to just being in physical control of a child. Lindemuth further contends that the statute is vague and that the definition of “entice” confused the jury. However, we find that section 787.03(1) is applicable to the case before us, where Lindemuth enticed Gregis to enter his car without parental permission to do so, thus interfering with parental custody....

...The trial court here instructed the jury that entice meant “to lure, induce, tempt, incite, or persuade a person to do a thing.” The trial court wanted it to be clear there was no sexual component to the definition of entice in the jury instruction, as subsection (1) of section 787.03, under which Lindemuth was charged, has no sexual component to it....

...In addition, the trial court used the definition of “entice” that the Fourth District Court of Appeal used, in part, in Leding. In Leding, the defendant was 5 charged with “enticing two children” under section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (1995). As in the case before us, the defendant in Leding never said anything sexual, and there was no evidence to suggest Leding had a sexual intent. Because there was no standard jury instruction to define entice, and it was not defined in section 787.03(1), the Fourth District Court of Appeal used the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary....

...Florida law recognizes that in the absence of a statutory definition, the plain and ordinary meaning of a word can be ascertained by looking to a dictionary. Suddath Van Lines, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Env. Protection, 668 So. 2d 209, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Therefore, 787.03(1) is 1The citation in Leding does not state which edition of Black’s Law Dictionary was used. 6 not vague, and the trial court did not err in using the definition of entice that it used in the...

...The kidnapping statute under which Geralyn Graham was charged, section 787.01(1)(a)4., more appropriately encompasses the totality and gravity of Geralyn Graham’s felonious conduct than the crimes defined in sections 787.02 (false imprisonment), 787.03 (interference with custody), and 787.04 (removal of child from state). A false imprisonment under section 787.02 does not necessarily interfere with the performance of a governmental function. Interference with custody (section 787.03) or removal from the state (section 787.04) are not necessarily forcible, secret, by threat, or against the will of the child....

...18 legislation10; the intent and meaning of this language as expressed by the originating source upon which this legislation was based11; canons of statutory the four aggravating circumstances of intent or purpose); § 787.03 (Interference with Custody, a first-degree misdemeanor); and § 787.04 (Removal of Child from State Contrary to Court Order, a third-degree felony)....

...ffenses being third-degree felonies and carrying the same penalty. See also, State v. Carpenter, 417 So.2d 986 (Fla.1982)(stating that offenses are not “lesser” if they carry the same penalty). Interference with custody is a third-degree felony. § 787.03(1), Fla....

...The form which accompanies rule 3.988(d) remains unamended. In addition, the legislature has made it a third-degree felony to unlawfully dump over 500 pounds in weight or 100 cubic feet in volume of litter. § 403.413(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1988). Also, section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), makes it a third-degree felony to unlawfully interfere with the custody of a child or incompetent....

evidence statements made by the children and that section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (1995) is void for vagueness

...ceful moving and confining the victims was simply incidental to that offense. The use of force, by breaking in, threatening with a gun, and forced movement and restraint, cannot be viewed as naturally accompanying the interference with custody under section 787.03, Florida Statutes....

As such, it falls within the provisions of Section 787.03(5)(a) [sic] F.S. F.S.A. (1980) above quoted

state laws: interference with child custody, section 787.03(2), and removing and concealing minors, section

support appellant’s conviction for a violation of section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (1993). It is, therefore

with custody,” a third degree felony, under section 787.03(2), Florida Statutes (2015). More than twenty-one

...d, take, entice, or remove a child beyond the limits of this state, or to conceal the location of a child, with personal knowledge of the order. The trial court also instructed the jury as to the lesser included offense of interference with custody. § 787.03, Fla.Stat....

...The Florida legislature has decided that we need section 787.04(1). In a proper case, it must be upheld. AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH, ORFINGER, COBB, COWART, DANIEL and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . The constitutionality of section 787.04(1) is not raised in this case. . That offense is described as: 787.03 Interference with custody.— (1) Whoever, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly takes or entices any child 17 years of age or under or any incom-....

...state lines. See 5 Miami L.Q. 312(1951); 12 U. Miami L.Rev. 428 (1958). As noted in 60 Fla. B J. No. 3, How to Recover a Missing Child after a Parental Kidnap at 57 (March 1986), Florida has made criminal two types of conduct involving custody under section 787.03 (prohibits taking a minor child from the custody of his parent), and section 787.04.

...s, seeks a writ of habeas corpus, ordering her immediate release from the county jail, where she is being held without bond on the basis that she violated her probation by committing the offense of interference with child custody, in violation of section 787.03(1), Florida Statutes (2022)....

...ing a probation revocation hearing. She subsequently moved to dismiss the information, but prior to a hearing, the State filed a superseding felony information charging her with one count of interference with child custody, in violation of section 787.03(1)....

...minor, to-wit: D.G., from the custody of the minor’s parent, guardian, public agency having the lawful charge of the minor or incompetent person, or any other lawful custodian, to-wit: ELISA MATOS, in violation of [section 787.03(1)], contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. 1 1 Gayle’s name does not appear in the information. 3  Petitioner again filed a motion to dismiss. Distilled to its essence, her argument was two-fold: (1) section 787.03(1) does not apply to a natural parent whose parental rights remain intact; and (2) a violation of a supervised timesharing order does not constitute a criminal offense. The State filed a demurrer and argued that petitioner committed a crime because she interfered “with Juan Gayle’s 100% timesharing,” and section 787.03(1) is equally applicable to natural parents....

...clear answer, [our analysis] ends there as well.’” Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Fla. Dep’t of Health, 329 So. 3d 784, 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 438 (1999)). Section 787.03 sets forth two separate third-degree felonies, both of which constitute “interference with custody.” Petitioner was charged with violating the first offense, which is described as follows: Whoever, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly takes or entices ....

.... . parent, his or her guardian, a public agency having the lawful 5  charge of the minor[,] . . . or any other lawful custodian commits the offense of interference with custody . . . . § 787.03(1), Fla....

...who has custody thereof and who takes . . . or entices away that minor . . . within or without the state with malicious intent to deprive another person of his or her right to custody of the minor . . . commits a felony of the third degree . . . . § 787.03(2), Fla....

...The statute is hardly a model of clarity and contains no definition section. A cursory reading might suggest that parental interference cases are uniquely relegated to the second part of the statute. Indeed, this court and a sister court have observed in passing that “[s]ection 787.03(1) prohibits interference with parental custody by a person who is not a parent or lawful custodian of the minor child in question.” Lindemuth v. State, 247 So. 3d 635, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); see also State 6 v. Earl, 649 So. 2d 297, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Although very poorly written, it appears that subsection (2) of section 787.03, added in 1987, is designed to govern the crime of interference with custody by a parent.”). This perspective is reinforced by the fact that another statute, section 787.04(1), Florida Statutes (2022), criminalizes taking a child “beyond the limits of this state” or concealing “the location of a minor” in violation of a court order. But, upon closer reading, section 787.03(1) is extraordinarily broad in scope....

...As there is no explicit parental exemption, any person, including a parent, falls within the ambit of the statute. Consistent with this view, our research has revealed several published opinions involving parental prosecutions commenced under section 787.03(1)....

...None, of course, involve an act as inconsequential as that forming the basis for prosecution in this case. See Khan v. State, 704 So. 2d 1129, 1130–31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reversing father’s conviction for interfering with custody of child under section 787.03(1) but affirming conviction under section 787.04(1) where father removed minor from state 7 when he moved to Pakistan with daughter in violation of court order); Arroyo v. State, 705 So. 2d 54, 56–57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (reversing and remanding mother’s conviction under section 787.03(1) where State presented no evidence of mother’s participation in taking her children from lawful custodian where evidence demonstrated only mother’s presence in vehicle at the time her husband drove their children to Mexico)....

...therefore decline to find an express conflict. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED. ANTOON, C.J. and GRIFFIN, J., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). . § 794.05(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). . § 787.03(1), Fla....