Corrected Filing 8/2/2026 20th Circuit (LeeClerk.org) Case # 16-CF-000371
6th DCA Case Number 6D2026-1799

Original Filing 7/1/2026, below

During a sworn deposition on March 1, 2017, Shane Romero as witness for the prosecution stated on the record that he never knew the family of the habitual offender, Adam King, prior to the accident. Romero states that as of a week after the accident King’s family was messaging back and forth with him. They added him on Facebook. He even met in person with Alex King. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the case.

After his meetings with King’s family, he dramatically changed his testimony from one truck at the accident to two, and the Dodge Ram 1500 with the camper top changing color from WHITE to RED. That is an extreme change in statement, after admitted tampering by King’s family.

Romero’s deposition:

In Romero’s original sworn statement on 6/30/2016 he stated “it had like…a top on top. Um…white, the top was white.”

Romero was asked and stated “Q:    Okay. So pickup truck with uh…with a topper on the back?

A:     Yes.”

It was interesting that Romero claimed that he was speeding up when the white Dodge Ram 1500 with the Camper Top was attempting to move into his lane. We have often wondered if the Ram was trying to move from the middle to the right lane when Romero decided to speed up. We have often seen people try to move into another lane before the lane cleared, not giving the person changing lanes anywhere to go. If King was trying to move into the middle lane while the Ram was moving into the right lane, and Romero sped up to block the Ram from moving into the right lane, Romero and King left the Ram nowhere to go. If this is truly the situation, Romero and King caused a collision with the Ram.

However, as discovery proves, King’s accident was a single vehicle accident caused by him “goosing” the bike = rapid acceleration that would cause an inexperienced rider to lose control.

BREAKING NEWS: Florida Defendant Still Waiting for Ruling on Motion Claiming Illegal Sentence

LEE COUNTY, FL — January 2026
A legal storm is brewing inside the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Florida, where a high-stakes motion filed by inmate Adam Murray Costello on June 30, 2025, continues to sit unresolved six months later. The motion—filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)—alleges that Costello has been serving two illegal sentences stemming from his 2018 convictions in a case of a pack of motorcycles racing though a residential neighborhood at over 100 mph in 2016, the motorcycle rider hitting the accelerator too hard while fleeing from a prior accident, and causing a single vehicle wreck. This type of motion is considered an “emergency motion” and is typically heard within 30 days, 60 days on the outside.

Costello, now in custody in Pompano Beach, filed what he titled his “Second Amended Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence.” The document, obtained by our newsroom, lays out a dramatic challenge to the legal foundations of both his convictions and his negotiated plea deal.

Despite the seriousness of the claims, the court has not issued any ruling—a silence that has left Costello’s case in limbo and sparked growing questions about delays inside the 20th Circuit.

---

THE MOTION: A DIRECT ATTACK ON THE SENTENCES THEMSELVES

Costello argues two main points:

1. The 10.5-year sentence for Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Death was imposed under a “repealed statute.”

According to Costello’s filing, the version of §316.027(2)(c), Florida Statutes, used in his prosecution had already been revised in 2015 after the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Dorsett.
He claims prosecutors charged him using the older version—one that no longer existed at the time of the 2016 incident—and that the sentence that followed is therefore illegal on its face.

2. His 5-year sentence for Tampering with Evidence is also “illegal” because the Criminal Punishment Code would have required a minimum of 10.5 years.

According to the motion, the victim-injury points applied to his sentencing scoresheet pushed the lowest permissible sentence above the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony.
Because the trial judge orally pronounced five years, Costello says that sentence was below the lawful minimum—another form of illegal sentence under Florida law.

The motion argues that no judge could lawfully impose either sentence “under any set of circumstances,” and that even a plea agreement cannot authorize a court to impose a sentence that the law does not permit.

---

YEARS OF APPEALS, BUT STILL NO FINAL ANSWER

Costello’s case has traveled a long legal road:

• A prior Rule 3.850 motion challenging his sentencing scoresheet reached the appellate courts.
• The Second District Court of Appeal initially sent the case back for an evidentiary hearing.
• At Costello’s evidentiary hearing, Judge Margaret Steinbeck stated on the record that Costello was NEVER charged with causation of death and no evidence existed at any time in this case that would support a finding that he caused death. Despite this, she reaffirmed the sentence after the hearing.
• The newly formed Sixth District Court of Appeal later affirmed again.

With those battles settled, Costello turned to Rule 3.800(a), a rare legal mechanism that allows courts to correct illegal sentences “at any time.”

He filed the amended version of this motion on June 30, 2025.
It was later re-filed on September 11, 2025, and stamped by the Lee County Clerk on September 18, 2025.

Yet no court order has followed.

---

A CASE CAUGHT IN SUSPENSE

Costello claims he has already served 7.5 years under a plea that, he argues, was built on two illegal sentencing terms.
If a court someday agrees with him, the consequences could be dramatic—potentially voiding the plea, rewriting the sentences, or allowing prosecutors to take the case back to trial.

Legal analysts say 3.800(a) motions are meant to be straightforward, fast, and limited only to errors visible “on the face of the record.”
But with months passed and the motion still undecided, this case has become anything but routine.

For now, Costello—and the public—waits.

In a request for documents to Ryan Doyle, son of Tommy Doyle who ran against Sinclair in the 2016 elections, Dan Sinclair appears to lay out the case with Adam Costello.

See the PDF below for copies of the evidence Sinclair appears to be seeking on the case. Based on information in Costello’s own court records with the 20th Circuit, 6th DCA and 11 Circuit Court of Appeals, it appears that Costello has already been able to pull from discovery much of the evidence he needed.

This PDF can be found directly from the courts at: https://matrix.leeclerk.org/Case/DocViewer?pdfName=30E25217-7136-49D8-BBEA-3F6AF6823C2F.pdf

1. Proof that Lesa Breneman lied under oath to obtain false arrest warrants against Sinclair and Costello
2. Proof that Sinclair was approximately five miles away from the accident when it occurred and was not involved in any way
3. Proof that none of the vehicles passed Sinclair’s house, nearly five miles away, on a dead end street, in the opposite direction of travel of the vehicles, at any point during or after the accident
4. Proof from the FDLE that Costello and King’s vehicles never made contact at any time
5. Proof that Costello could not have even seen King as they were nowhere near each other at any point
6. Proof that Sinclair’s sentence was an illegal sentence and had nothing to do with the false charges he was hit with
7. Proof that no one at FMPD ever asked Sinclair or any of his neighbors for their video, nor did they ask any of the neighbors if they had seen any of the vehicles at any time
8. Proof that Sinclair’s DVR was not functioning at the time of the incident and had not functioned for approximately two years prior
   1. Proof from the manufacturer in writing
   1. Eye witnesses that were admittedly tampered with by an LCSO Deputy
   1. Affidavit from Sinclair’s neighbor that the DVR would not record and he had been shopping for a new DVR prior to the incident
9. Proof that Sinclair’s DVR had absolutely nothing to do with King’s motorcycle accident 5 miles West, and was not, nor could be evidence in any way
10. Proof that King’s series of three accidents were single vehicle accidents
11. Proof that claims that Breneman spun in the media claiming Sinclair or Costello were drinking and driving were complete fiction
12. Record of Arrests of Adam King and cases of reckless riding and speeding going back to when he first received his license (not from the time it may have been revoked for two years), as well as revocation of license
13. Record of Arrests of Timothy Bernal and cases of reckless riding and speeding going back to when he first received his license
14. Record of Arrests of Shane Romero and cases of reckless riding and speeding going back to when he first received his license
15. Record of Arrests of Joshua Swartwout and cases of reckless riding and speeding going back to when he first received his license
16. Accident reconstruction showing that Adam King and his fellow racing pack riders were riding in excess of 120 mph when Adam King had his single vehicle accident, and his fellow riders fled the scene
17. Identity and vehicle information for all of the riders in Adam King’s racing pack including the four other riders who were identified in the 911 call by Timothy Bernal, yet did not show up in any of the other paper work or discovery, including the accident report. 
18. The list of all of the fundamental errors in the case
19. Proof of the illegal sentences handed out
20. Proof of the incorrect/illegal score sheets
21. Proof that the FMPD investigator lied to other police officers about Sinclair and Costello to paint a false picture of them.  The purpose was to override their strong positive reputations so people would believe the false narrative. 
    1. Include a copy of Internal Affairs Complaint W002284-071216 filed with Mayor Henderson.  Also include the addition to that complaint by Attorney Cordell on 7/12/2016 for the assault committed upon Sinclair by the same investigator while voluntarily at FMPD. 
    1. Include the proof that the FMPD investigator was aggressively pushing Sinclair to lie about the innocent man, Costello, to make their case easier. 
    1. Include that part of the reason for the case against Sinclair was retaliation for him refusing to lie about Costello when bullied by the FMPD. 
    1. Include a copy of the Acting Chief’s email stating he was going to ignore the complaint, claiming it was not properly filed.  Additionally include a copy of the City of Fort Myers procedures clearly showing this complaint was correctly filed via one of the two options they state by policy.
22. Proof of the series of hate groups started by the investigator at FMPD, the mother of the Habitual Offender who committed insurance fraud against Costello’s insurance, and the groupies who followed her for revenge against Costello after he cut them out of his life.
23. Proof that the hate groups started by the persons above posted the addresses of Costello and Sinclair and encouraged violence and harassment against Costello and Sinclair
24. All documents relating to FMPD discussions with the LCSO, including but not limited to Sheriff Mike Scott who asked Sinclair to run for office.  The purpose of these meetings appear to be to convince Scott to no longer back Sinclair running for office. 
25. Proof that the pack of delinquents and Dodge Ram 1500 with the Camper top never rode past the address DVR covered after they fled the accident scenes the Habitual Offender caused
26. Proof that FMPD never asked for any of the footage from cameras pointed at the address on the dead-end street, immediately or any time after the accident occurred.
27. Proof that the “investigator” lied about the 7 day max recording time for the DVR that had nothing to do with the accident.
28. Proof that FMPD lied under oath fleeing in both arrest and search warrants about the vehicle the motorcycles struck (according to one of the riders in the pack).
29. Proof that it was the pack of motorcycles racing down Colonial Blvd that caused the accidents and not the Dodge Ram 1500 with the camper top.
30. Proof that the pack riders did commit murder when jointly committing crimes in causing the accidents and fleeing the scene, and that their investigator coordinated actions of blaming the Ram 1500 with the Camper Top for the accident, and making other false claims were to keep them from going to prison.
31. Proof that Adam King’s pack threatening April Freeman’s life did lead to the stress that caused her death.  Include a copy of the full police report that April Freeman filed with the Cape Coral Police Department on 7/20/2016 and any prior and subsequent reports of violence from this pack; the FMPD investigator, the mother of the Habitual Offender that caused the accident and fled the scene, and their groupies.  To refresh your memory, I believe one of the CCPD report numbers is 16-011637.
32. Proof that the mother of the habitual offender that caused the accident committed insurance fraud, along with her attorney.
33. Proof that the FMPD investigator and the Habitual Offender’s stepfather’s sister did plant false information in a sworn statement of person who was not witness to the crime, but was listed as an FMPD witness none-the-less.  The information such as “fleeing the state” was used intentionally to give to Dave Elias at NBC2/ABC7 to continue to plant false stories about Sinclair and Costello to give the impression they were guilty of something, which they were clearly not. 
34. Proof that the FMPD investigator did turn off her camera when speaking to Sinclair’s attorney Cordell on 7/14/2016 with the express purpose of not catching the part of the conversation where she agreed to wait the 5 minutes until Cordell arrived at Sinclair’s house.  The purpose of lying to Cordell and not following through was as the officer intended to paint a false picture to the media.  It appears the whole scam was lined up well before the officer arrived at the house. 
35. Proof that the FMPD officer did hold Costello and Sinclair inside their respective homes while the officer went outside and spoke to the media.  Despite both Costello and Sinclair and their attorneys fully cooperating, the officer made false statements to the media, including but not limited to claiming she found Sinclair hiding in his closet.  In fact Sinclair was on the other side of the door on the phone with his attorney, Cordell, which the officer knew.  Sinclair opened the door for the deputies and officers.  Instead one story she supposedly told, according to Dave Elias, was that FMPD had to have a SWAT team break down the door. 
36. Proof that FMPD ignored the one security recording device in the Sinclair’s house, leaving it on the dining room table, and instead took what they believed were Sinclair’s main computer and servers, as well as personal documents, none of which were in the search warrant.  The obvious purpose was to harm Sinclair’s efforts to win the office the Sheriff had asked him to run for.       
37. Proof that FMPD’s own police union wants to remove the investigator from office.
38. Proof that the state attorney’s office did file charges against the FMPD arresting officer for fabricating evidence, bringing false charges, lying under oath and prostitution.
39. Arrest reports of defendants
40. Witness Statements
41. Depositions
42. Any expert testimony, reconstruction and anything along those lines
43. Any and all documents given to defense through the process of discovery.
44. All trust account records regarding the representation of James Daniel Sinclair, and all records of incurred costs and use of advance fee payments.
45. Any information or material provided to attorneys by defendant or other attorneys

The following are the six essential elements the state was required to charge Costello with:

1. Costello was the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash resulting in death.
2. Costello knew that he was involved in a crash
3. Costello knew or should have known of the injury to or death of the victim
4. Costello willfully failed to stop at the scene of the crash and render aid
5. Costello caused the death of the victim.
6. Costello knew of the specific impact that caused the death of the victim

Element 5 is an enhancement that becomes an essential element. The Apprendi implication caused this to be an essential element. An enhancement is when the state increases the minimum sentence.

Elements one through four are the standard elements in Florida Standard Jury Instruction 28.4

The state was required to provide Costello with this notice, so he knew and understood what he was being charged with. One cannot defend a charge, when they have no idea what they are being charged with.

Some minor details:

1. Costello did not make contact with the Habitual Offender (presented as the victim, by the state), so Costello was not involved in the crash
2. Costello could not have known that the Habitual Offender crashed his motorcycle, as this happened behind Costello and was a single vehicle accident. Costello was not involved.
3. Had Costello had somehow known about the crash, he could not have known which impact caused the death of the Habitual Offender, as even the Medical Examiner had no idea
4. The state was required to clearly state how Costello caused the death of the accident and prove that Costello was responsible. Since the accident happened behind Costello, and he neither caused nor even was aware of the accident, this would be impossible.
5. The state was required to perform and accident reconstruction, which it didn’t bother to do, as it was aware Costello was not involved in the Habitual Offender’s single vehicle accident.

Florida Standard Jury Instruction 28.4 from the Florida Bar Web Site https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2023/12/28.4-1.docx

These are the four standard essential elements.

Jacksonville, FL — In a dramatic legal turn, a Florida inmate has filed an explosive federal petition alleging he is actually innocent, was never charged with an actual crime, and is currently imprisoned based on what he calls “non-criminal conduct” and catastrophic failures by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and state courts.

The filing — a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus submitted in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida — comes from Adam Murray Costello, a man serving a 10.5-year sentence for allegedly leaving the scene of a fatal crash. Costello says not only did he not cause the death, but overwhelming evidence shows he wasn’t even involved in the crash at all.

The petition reads like a legal thriller — one that challenges nearly every stage of the case, from the original police investigation to the performance of his lawyers, and even the validity of the charges themselves.

---

A Stunning Claim: “No Crime Was Ever Charged.”

Costello’s most shocking allegation is simple:
He was convicted of a crime that was never actually charged.

In his petition, Costello argues that the Fourth Amended Information — the formal charging document — left out multiple essential elements of the crime of “Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Death.” According to him, the document:

• Misstated the law,
• Omitted required elements, and
• Failed to allege “willfulness”, which Florida law requires.

He claims that without these key elements, the document does not allege a crime at all — a flaw so serious that Florida courts consider it jurisdictional, meaning the trial court had no legal authority to convict him.

“This is non-criminal conduct,” the petition argues bluntly.
“Even after four amendments, the State never charged me with an actual crime.”

---

What Really Happened That Night? A Tale of Two Trucks

The petition paints a dramatically different picture of the deadly crash.

Eyewitnesses: “It was a Dodge Ram with a camper top.”

Three eyewitnesses — whose sworn statements are included — consistently described the vehicle involved in the fatal crash as:

• A Dodge Ram 1500/2500,
• Equipped with a camper top,
• Traveling at high speed and leaving behind a chaotic scene of debris, ripped-out signs, and catastrophic impacts.

Costello, however, drove a Toyota Tundra — and the petition says the State’s own expert concluded there was zero paint transfer between his truck and the victim’s motorcycle.

FDLE Expert: “No transfer. None.”

An FDLE forensic analyst determined:

• The supposed “blue paint transfer” the detective relied on was not paint transfer at all,
• But pigment inside Costello’s factory clear-coat,
• And the only actual transferred material was grey plastic — a substance not found anywhere on the motorcycle.

In short:
No physical evidence linked Costello’s truck to the crash.

Phone Data: He Was Going the Opposite Direction

A separate FDLE phone-ping analyst mapped Costello’s cellphone at the time of the crash:

• He was traveling west on Colonial Blvd,
• While the hit-and-run truck was witnessed traveling south on McGregor Blvd,
• And moments later Costello was home, where his phone remained.

The petition says this proves Costello could not have been the driver eyewitnesses saw.

---

Hidden Witness? Missing Evidence?

One eyewitness, Joshua Swartwout, reportedly gave a sworn statement describing the crash and direction of travel — but his sworn statement was never provided to the defense, never entered into evidence, and appears to have vanished from the discovery file.

The petition calls this suppression of exculpatory evidence, one of the most serious accusations in criminal law.

---

Trial Attorney Later Became a Judge — and “Failed Catastrophically”

Costello’s petition accuses his trial attorney — now a sitting judge — of:

• Failing to challenge the defective charging document,
• Failing to present exculpatory expert evidence,
• Failing to challenge false statements in the probable-cause affidavit,
• Advising him to take a plea despite no evidence his vehicle ever struck the motorcycle.

Costello’s post-conviction attorney is also accused of “gross ineffectiveness,” including filing a legally impossible motion and failing to raise obvious, stronger claims.

These failures, Costello argues, triggered the Martinez v. Ryan exception allowing federal courts to hear his claims despite procedural delays.

---

A Second Huge Claim: The State Never Proved — or Even Claimed — He Caused the Death

Florida’s sentencing rules only allow “victim injury points” — which dramatically raise prison time — when the State alleges and proves that the defendant caused the death.

But according to Costello:

• The charging document never alleged he caused the death,
• No evidence at all of causation was ever entered,
• And the sentencing judge later admitted she never found that he caused the death.

The Second District Court of Appeal agreed, stating:

“The record contains no information regarding the victim’s cause of death.”

If the cause of death was unknown, Costello argues, then he cannot be punished for it.

---

The Heart of the Petition: “I Am Actually Innocent.”

Habeas petitions rarely make “actual innocence” claims because the legal standard is astonishingly high. But Costello says he can meet it.

He points to:

• Eyewitness statements identifying a completely different truck,
• Forensic evidence eliminating his vehicle,
• Phone-ping data contradicting the State’s theory,
• Missing witness testimony,
• State expert findings never shown to the jury, and
• Zero evidence he was involved in the crash at all.

“No reasonable juror,” he argues, “could possibly find me guilty.”

---

A Federal Court Now Holds the Case

The petition requests that the Jacksonville Division of the federal court intervene to prevent what Costello calls a “miscarriage of justice,” citing the court’s previous ruling in Pringle, where a similar defect in the charging language resulted in habeas relief.

If granted, Costello could see:

• His conviction vacated,
• His charges dismissed, or
• A new trial — one where, he says, the evidence would show he had nothing to do with the fatal crash.

---

What Happens Next?

The federal court will decide whether Costello’s petition merits a hearing. Given the serious allegations — defective charges, missing evidence, expert contradictions, and claims of innocence — legal observers will likely be watching closely.

For now, a man convicted of a fatal hit-and-run is telling the federal judiciary:

“You convicted me of a crime that never happened — and I can prove it.”

Adam Murray Costello has filed a habeas corpus petition asking a Florida court to overturn his conviction and release him from prison. A habeas corpus petition is a legal request that challenges whether someone is being held in prison legally. Costello argues that his conviction is unlawful because the State of Florida failed to properly charge him with a crime in the first place.

Here’s what his petition says — in simple terms.

---

Why He Filed This Petition

Costello says that when he pleaded no contest back in 2018, he did so based on charging documents (called an “information”) that were legally defective. He argues that the State:

• Failed to include essential elements of the crimes they accused him of,
• Used outdated or incorrect versions of the law,
• Charged multiple unrelated acts as one crime, and
• Increased his potential punishment using facts that were never charged, proven, or admitted.

Costello claims these errors deprived the court of the legal authority (jurisdiction) to convict and sentence him. If that’s true, the conviction would be considered void, not just incorrect.

---

Background of the Case

• Costello was charged with two crimes:
  1. Leaving the scene of a crash involving death
  2. Tampering with evidence
• He took a no-contest plea.
• He received 10.5 years for the first charge and 5 years for the second, served at the same time.
• He did not file a direct appeal but later filed several post-conviction motions.
• After hearings and appeals, those motions were denied, leading him to file this new petition.

---

Costello’s Main Arguments

1. The State Left Out Essential Parts of the Crime in Count One (Leaving the Scene of a Crash)

Costello says that the charging document was missing five of the six elements required to legally accuse someone of “leaving the scene of a crash involving death.”

He claims the State:

Used the wrong version of the law

The charge said Costello “knew or should have known a crash occurred.”
But Florida law at the time of the incident required actual knowledge, not “should have known.”
In other words, the law said the State must prove he truly knew a crash happened — not that he should have known it.

Left out the requirement that he knew the victim was injured or dead

The State must allege, in writing, that the driver knew (or should have known) the victim was hurt or killed. Costello says this was missing entirely.

Left out the key word: “willfully”

Florida law says the only crime in this statute is “willfully leaving” the scene after knowing a crash occurred.
Costello’s charge did not allege that he acted “willfully,” which he says means they never actually charged him with the real crime defined by law.

Never alleged he caused the victim’s death — even though his sentence was increased as if he did

Costello was given 120 “victim injury points” at sentencing, increasing his potential prison time. But he says the State never alleged in writing that he caused the death, and he never admitted to it.

Never specified which impact he supposedly knew caused the death

The crash involved multiple impacts with different objects (motorcycle, median curb, sign, tree).
Costello argues that the law requires prosecutors to specify which impact caused the fatal injury — and that they failed to do this.

---

2. The Tampering Charge (Count Two) Also Left Out Required Elements

They increased his sentencing range without alleging the required facts

Like Count One, the State added victim-injury points to the tampering charge, which raised the minimum sentence above the normal maximum.
Costello argues this violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s rule in Apprendi, which says anything that increases a sentence must be:

• charged in writing,
• proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or
• admitted by the defendant.

He says none of that happened.

Count Two Combined Three Separate Crimes Into One

The charging document listed three different acts:

• deleting Facebook information,
• tampering with a cell phone,
• tampering with a DVR.

These events were weeks apart. Costello argues these are three totally separate offenses and cannot legally be combined into a single count. Combining them, he says, violates due process because it denies clear notice of what exact crime he was being charged with.

---

3. Because Both Charges Were Defective, the Court Had No Authority to Convict Him

Costello argues that when a charging document is missing essential elements, it fails to charge any crime at all.
Florida courts have ruled that:

• A conviction based on such a document is void.
• A void conviction can be challenged at any time.
• A void conviction means the court never had jurisdiction (legal authority) to act.

Costello claims that since both counts were defective, the entire charging document is void and therefore:

• the court never had jurisdiction,
• the judgment is invalid, and
• he must be released.

---

What Costello Wants

He asks the court to:

• Grant the writ of habeas corpus
  or
• Grant any other relief the court finds appropriate — ideally meaning release from prison.

---

In Simple Terms

Costello is saying:

“The State charged me incorrectly, left out essential elements, used the wrong version of the law, and enhanced my punishment using facts never charged or proven. Because of these errors, the court never had the legal authority to convict me. I am being held illegally and should be released.”

---

Yes, the prisoner should expect the habeas corpus petition to be granted, as the State’s prosecution was based on a non-existent crime, as clarified in State v. Dorsett, and the felony hit-and-run statute requires actual knowledge of a crash. The invocation of original jurisdiction by the Sixth DA is irrelevant to the merits of the underlying legal error, and the trial court should grant the petition because the plea was entered under an unconstitutional standard of law. 

Legal Basis

1. State v. Dorsett Established the Standard
   • The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Dorsett (2015) clarified that a conviction for a felony hit-and-run charge under Section 316.027, Florida Statutes, requires proof that the driver had actual knowledge that a crash occurred.
   • This was a reversal of the standard jury instruction at the time, which used a “knew or should have known” standard.
2. Application to the Prisoner’s Case
   • The prisoner entered a plea based on a statute that, as previously applied, included the incorrect “knew or should have known” standard.
   • Because the Florida Supreme Court later ruled this standard was an incorrect statement of the law for felony hit-and-run, the prisoner’s plea was based on an unconstitutional application of the law.
3. Role of the Habeas Corpus Petition
   • A writ of habeas corpus is a proper legal avenue for a prisoner to challenge the lawfulness of their detention based on a fundamental error in the legal standard applied to their conviction or plea.
4. Irrelevance of the Sixth DA’s Action
   • The Sixth District Attorney invoking original jurisdiction prior to the trial court’s review is a procedural matter related to the appellate process and does not change the fundamental legal error in the prisoner’s plea. 

Conclusion
The prisoner’s claim rests on a successful legal challenge to the standard for a felony hit-and-run charge as clarified in Dorsett. Because the prisoner’s plea was based on a standard of law that the Florida Supreme Court later determined was incorrect, the conviction is based on a fundamentally flawed legal basis. Therefore, the prisoner should expect the habeas corpus petition to be granted. 

From the Florida Bar, 2025

28.4 LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRASH INVOLVing [DEATH] [SERIOUS BODILY INJURY] [INJURY]

§ 316.027(2), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving [Death] [Serious Bodily Injury] [Injury], the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.       (Defendant) was the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash occurring on public or private property resulting in [injury to] [the death of] (victim).

2.       (Defendant) knew that [he] [she] was involved in a crash.

Give 3a if death is charged or 3b if injury or serious bodily injury is charged.

3.       a.       (Defendant) knew, or should have known from all of the circumstances, including the nature of the crash, of the injury to or death of (victim).

b.       (Defendant) knew, or should have known from all of the circumstances, including the nature of the crash, of the injury to (victim).

See Comment section for cases involving death.

4.       (Defendant) willfully failed to immediately stop at the scene of the crash or as close to the crash as possible and failed to remain until [he] [she] had completed two things:

a.        given identifying information to [(victim)] [the driver] [an occupant] [a person attending the vehicle] and to any police officer investigating the crash; 

and

b.       rendered reasonable assistance to (victim).

Patterson v. State, 512 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

“Willfully” means knowingly, intentionally, and purposely.

§ 316.062(1), Fla. Stat.

“Identifying information” means the name, address, vehicle registration number, and, if available and requested, the exhibition of the defendant’s license or permit to drive.

“Reasonable assistance” includes carrying or making arrangements to carry an injured person to a physician or hospital for medical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary, or if such carrying is requested by the injured person.

Gaulden v. State, 195 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 2016); State v. Elder, 975 So.2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

For the defendant to be “involved in a crash,” a vehicle, though not necessarily the defendant’s vehicle, must collide with another vehicle, person, or object.

Give if applicable. State v. Elder, 975 So.2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

“Involved” means to draw in as a participant, to implicate, to relate closely, to connect, to have an effect on, to concern directly, or to affect.

§ 316.003, Fla. Stat. Some of these terms have their own statutory definitions, which should be given if necessary.

A “vehicle” is any device in, upon, or by which any person or property is, or may be, transported or drawn upon a highway[, except personal delivery devices, mobile carriers, and devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks].

Give if serious bodily injury is charged. § 316.027(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

§ 316.027(2)(b), Fla. Stat.

If you find that (defendant) committed the crime of Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Injury, you must then determine whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the injury was a serious bodily injury.

 “Serious bodily injury” means an injury to a person, including the driver, which consists of a physical condition that creates a substantial risk of death, serious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.

Give if it is alleged in the charging document that the defendant caused victim injury or death. § 921.0021(7)(e), Fla. Stat. 

If you find that (defendant) committed the crime of Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving [Death] [Serious Bodily Injury] [Injury], you must then determine whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] [she] caused [death] [or] [severe injury] [or] [moderate injury] [or] [slight injury] to (victim).

Give when the State alleged the victim was a “vulnerable road user.”

§ 316.027(2)(f), Fla. Stat.

If you find that (defendant) committed the crime of Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving [Death] [Serious Bodily Injury] [or] [Injury], you must then determine whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (victim) was:

[a pedestrian].

[actually engaged in work upon a highway].

[actually engaged in work upon utility facilities along a highway].

[engaged in the provision of emergency services within the right-of-way].

[operating a [bicycle] [an electric bicycle] [motorcycle] [scooter] [moped] lawfully on the roadway].

[riding an animal].

[lawfully operating [a farm tractor or similar vehicle designed primarily for farm use] [a skateboard] [roller-skates] [in-line skates] [a horse-drawn carriage] [an electric personal assistive mobility device] [a wheelchair] on [a public right-of-way] [crosswalk] [shoulder of the roadway]].

If the “vulnerable road user” enhancement is given, insert applicable definitions from § 316.003, Fla. Stat.

Lesser Included Offenses

LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRASH INVOLVING DEATH — 316.027(2)(c)

CATEGORY ONE	CATEGORY TWO	FLA. STAT.	INS. NO.
Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Serious Bodily Injury*		316.027(2)(b)	28.4
Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Injury*		316.027(2)(a)	28.4
	Attempt	777.04(1)	5.1

LEAVING THE SCENE OF A CRASH INVOLVING SERIOUS BODILY INJURY — 316.027(2)(b)

CATEGORY ONE	CATEGORY TWO	FLA. STAT.	INS. NO.
Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Injury		316.027(2)(a)	28.4
	Attempt	777.04(1)	5.1

Comments

Element #4 will need to be modified in cases where someone died because the deceased cannot receive information or assistance to which he or she is entitled under § 316.062(1), Fla. Stat. The revised instruction on element #4 will also depend on whether a police officer is present. In a case where someone died and no police officer was present, § 316.062(2), Fla. Stat., requires the driver of a vehicle involved in the crash to forthwith report the crash to the nearest office of a duly authorized police authority and provide the information specified in § 316.062(1), Fla. Stat. 

§ 921.0021(7)(e), Fla. Stat. states that if a defendant is convicted for violating       § 316.027, Fla. Stat., and if the court finds that the defendant caused victim injury, victim injury points may be assessed against the offender. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and Gaymon v. State, 288 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 2020) will require a special instruction and a jury finding on the issue of causation of victim injury.   

*In Williams v. State, 732 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), the court stated in dictum that Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Injury is a necessarily lesser-included offense of Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Death. In other areas, however, where there is no dispute that a person was killed as a result of an incident giving rise to criminal charges, non-death lessers are not appropriate. See, e.g., State v. Barritt, 531 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1988); Humphrey v. State, 690 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

This instruction was adopted in 1995 [665 So. 2d 212] and amended in 2008 [973 So. 2d 432], 2015 [166 So. 3d 161], 2016 [192 So. 3d 1190], 2018 [236 So. 2d 244], 2019 [262 So. 3d 59], on October 2, 2020, on April 1, 2022, and on December 15, 2023.