Goble v. State, 88-597
| Decision Date | 29 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-597,88-597 |
| Citation | 535 So.2d 706,14 Fla. L. Weekly 81 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 81 George Marshall GOBLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paula C. Coffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Goble appeals his convictions for two counts of sexual battery raising as his primary point on appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss the amended information filed against him. Goble contends that the information and the subsequent statement of particulars were fatally defective in that they failed to provide a sufficiently definite time period in which the crimes were alleged to have occurred thus making it impossible to prepare a defense and exposing him to double jeopardy. We agree and reverse. 1
The amended information charged Goble with two counts of sexual battery which were alleged to have occurred "between the 1st day of May, 1981 and the 31st day of December, 1983." The state later filed a statement of particulars which reiterated that the offenses occurred "sometime between 5-1-81 and 12-31-83 on various and diverse occasions".
A factually similar situation was presented in Knight v. State, 506 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). In that case, Knight was charged with two counts of capital sexual battery on his stepdaughter, the first occurring within a stated four year time frame and the second within a time frame of just over three years. The trial court denied Knight's motion to dismiss for vagueness and then denied his motion for a statement of particulars. Knight was later convicted. On appeal, we reversed Knight's conviction, explaining as follows:
The information should have stated the time of the offenses more definitely, as is required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140, which provides:
(d)(3) Time and place.--Each count of an indictment or information upon which the defendant is to be tried shall contain allegations stating as definitely as possible the time and place of the commission of the offense charged in the act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together, provided the court in which the indictment or information is filed has jurisdiction to try all of the offenses charged.
The trial court erred in denying the defense motion to dismiss counts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Theriault, s. 90-1353
...So.2d 649 (Fla.1989), approving Tingley v. State, 495 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) overruled our prior decisions of Goble v. State, 535 So.2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) and Knight v. State, 506 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Because of our holding, we are not required to address this argume......
-
State v. Dell'Orfano
...new indictment upon more certain time periods. The trial court in this case relied upon DeBianchi, and also considered Goble v. State, 535 So.2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), State v. Garcia, 511 So.2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), and Knight v. State, 506 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), in concluding......
-
Dell'Orfano v. State
...Justice. We have for review State v. Dell'Orfano, 592 So.2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), based on certified conflict with Goble v. State, 535 So.2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(4), Fla. David Dell'Orfano was charged by information with one count of sexual bat......
-
Pagan v. State, 90-2441
...affirmance is appropriate for the two month time period at issue in the present case. The defendant also relies on Goble v. State, 535 So.2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), but that case involved a two and one-half year period of time--not the two month period in the present case. See State v. Jon......