State v. Hamilton (1995)

The Florida Supreme Court has construed curtilage narrowly, requiring "some form of an enclosure in order for the area surrounding a residence to be considered part of the `curtilage' as referred to in the burglary statute." State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (1995) (holding that a yard surrounded by trees was not "curtilage"); see also United States v. Matthews, 466 F.3d 1271, 1274 (C.A.11 2006) ("Florida case law construes curtilage narrowly, to include only an enclos…

At the time of the convictions, the Florida statute defined a “building” as including a structure’s curtilage, and “Florida case law construe[d] curtilage narrowly, to include only an enclosed area surrounding a structure.” Id. at 1274 (citing State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (Fla.1995); Henry v. State, 707 So.2d 370, 372 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1998)).

While the statute neglects to define “curtilage,” Florida courts have defined it as an area surrounding a residence which has “some form of an enclosure.” State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (Fla.1995).

The Florida Supreme Court has said that “some form of an enclosure [is required] in order for the area surrounding a residence to be considered part of the ‘curtilage’ as referred to in the burglary statute.” State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (Fla. 1995).

While the statute neglects to define "curtilage," Florida courts have defined it as an area surrounding a residence which has "some form of an enclosure." State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (Fla. 1995).

Prior to the James decision, the Florida Supreme Court had defined curtilage narrowly, including only those areas inside “some form of an enclosure in order for the area surrounding a residence to be considered part of the ‘curtilage’ as referred to in the burglary statute.” State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (Fla.1995).

Prior to the James decision, the Florida Supreme Court had defined curtilage narrowly, including only those areas inside “some form of an enclosure in order for the area surrounding a residence to be considered part of the ‘curtilage’ as referred to in the burglary statute.” State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (Fla. 1995).

The Florida statute under which Gomez was convicted and the criminal information to which Gomez pleaded nolo contendere both include entry into a dwelling’s curtilage. 2 The Florida courts have held “that the common law definition of curtilage, ‘the ground and buildings immediately surrounding a dwelling and customarily used in connection with it,’ must be applied to the burglary statute.” Anderson v. State, 831 So.2d 702, 703 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002) (citing State v. Hamilton…

State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044-45 (Fla.1995).

Originally the term "curtilage" signified only the area immediately surrounding a dwelling house, including the "cluster of buildings ... in reasonably close proximity... which were used by the dweller." State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1041 (Fla.1995).

However, the Defendant’s own recitation of the testimony and facts presented at trial, with which the Court agrees, established the State proved each element of the charged 2 The burglary statute defines a “structure” as “a building of any kind, either temporary or permanent, which has a roof over it, together with the curtilage thereof.” § 810.011(1), Fla. Stat. Although the term “curtilage” is not defined by statute, the Florida Supreme Court has determined that “some form…

State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038, 1046 (Fla. 1995); Lozano v. State, 584 So. 2d 19, 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

State v. Ferris, 623 So. 2d 752, 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). -6- 'curtilage.' " State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038, 1044-45 (Fla. 1995).

State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044-45 (Fla. 1995).

State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1046 (Fla.1995).

See § 810.011, Fla. Stat. (2012); State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1040-1045 (Fla.1995) (construing “curtilage”).

Although section 810.011(1) & (2) defines both a structure and a dwelling to include “the curtilage thereof,” it omits a definition of the term “curtilage.” However, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that the term “curtilage,” as contemplated by the legislature in the burglary statute, “carries] forward the common law requirement of some form of enclosure in order for the area surrounding a residence to be considered part of the ‘curtilage’ as referred to in the burglary s…

State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044-45 (Fla.1995).

State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (Fla.1995).

State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1045-46 (Fla.1995) (citing Moody v. State, 359 So.2d 557, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)).

In State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Fla.1995), our supreme court held that the common law definition of curtilage, "the ground and buildings immediately surrounding a dwelling and customarily used in connection with it," must be applied to the burglary statute.

See Thompson v. State, 695 So.2d 691, 693 (Fla.1997); State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1045 (Fla.1995).

State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (Fla.1995).

Appellant argues that this instruction misstated the law, relying on State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Fla.1995).

The instructive case on this issue is State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (Fla.1995), wherein the supreme court stated: "We conclude that such a construction here requires us to carry forward the common law requirement of some form of an enclosure in order for the area surrounding a residence to be considered part of the `curtilage' as referred to in the burglary statute." The operative words are "some form of an enclosure." The carport in question constitutes a sufficie…

See State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (Fla.1995); see also James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192, 212-13 , 127 S.Ct. 1586 , 167 L.Ed.2d 532 (2007) (citing to Hamilton’s definition of curtilage and noting that Florida’s definition of cur-tilage takes the offense of burglary outside of Taylor’s definition of generic burglary).

See State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (Fla.1995); Henry v. State, 707 So.2d 370, 372 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.1998) Consistent with the fact that Florida does not consider burglary of the curtilage of a structure to be a crime distinct from burglary of that structure, Henry, 707 So.2d at 372 , the judgments of conviction for Matthews’s third-degree burglaries list his crimes only as “Burglary” and “Burglary (Structure).” The convictions do not specify whether he entered the ro…

See Chambers, 555 U.S. at 126-27 (noting that failure-to-report and escape, set forth in the same section of the Illinois statute, are distinct offenses because Illinois Of course, the statutory definitions of both “structure” in § 810.011(1) (1976) and “dwelling” in § 810.011(2) (1982) extend to include “the curtilage thereof.” State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1040 (Fla. 1995).

See also State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038, 1042 (Fla. 1995); Sarantopoulos v. State, 629 So. 2d 121, 123 (Fla. 1993).

Id.; see State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Fla.1995) (applying the common law definition of curtilage to Florida’s burglary statute).

See State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1042 (Fla.1995) (discussing common law and contemporary meanings of what constitutes the curtilage). .

See State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044 (Fla.1995).

See State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1995); B.W. v. State, 973 So.2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

P. 3.985; see also State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1045-46 (Fla.1995) (citing Moody, 359 So.2d at 560 ); Holt v. State, 987 So.2d 237, 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

See also State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044-45 (Fla.1995)(requiring some form of enclosure for “curtilage” as applied to burglary statute).

See State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1995).

See generally State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1044-45 (Fla.1995).

See State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1045 (Fla.1995).

See Hamilton, 660 So.2d at 1044 .

See State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1995).

See also State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1995).

NOTES [1] See Koehler v. State, 444 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (concluding officer's warrantless arrest of defendant at his home, on his unenclosed front porch and exposed to public view, did not unconstitutionally invade defendant's privacy or intrude into his home); State v. Detlefson, 335 So.2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)(finding defendant did not have reasonable expectation of privacy in front porch of his home where delivery men and others were free to observe plants th…

See Koehler v. State, 444 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (concluding officer’s warrantless arrest of defendant at his home, on his unenclosed front porch and exposed to public view, did not unconstitutionally invade defendant's privacy or intrude into his home); State v. Detlefson, 335 So.2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)(finding defendant did not have reasonable expectation of privacy in front porch of his home where delivery men and others were free to observe plants thereon); St…

See, e.g., State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038, 1045 (Fla.1995).

See State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 1995); Chapman v. Lake, 112 Fla. 746 , 151 So. 399 (1933).

See State v. Hamilton, 660 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1995).