Hart v. State
| Decision Date | 24 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2900.,97-2900. |
| Citation | 761 So.2d 334 |
| Parties | William S. HART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Patrick C. Rastatter of Glass & Rastatter, P.A., and Hillard E. Moldof, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elaine L. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We affirm Appellant's conviction for corruption by threat under section 838.021, Florida Statutes (1997). Appellant argues that the information actually charged Appellant with harming the officer in question, rather than threatening to harm him, and because there was no evidence that Appellant physically harmed the officer, he should have been acquitted. Section 838.021 provides that an accused can be convicted of "corruption by threat" in one of two ways; either unlawfully harming a public servant or unlawfully threatening to harm a public servant. The information under which Appellant was charged states,
Appellant asserts that the way the information is worded, it charged him only with harming the officer, rather than threatening harm, notwithstanding the wording in the "to wit" clause. However, Appellant never properly presented this argument to the trial court. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(n) provides that if a defendant believes that the information "fails to inform [him] of the particulars of the offense sufficient to enable him to prepare his defense," the court may order the prosecuting attorney to furnish a statement of particulars. However, Appellant failed to file a motion for such. Neither did Appellant file a motion to dismiss, or in any other way raise this objection to the court before the conclusion of the trial. "[W]here the charging allegations are merely incomplete or imprecise, the failure to timely file a motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c) waives the defense, and it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal." Carver v. State, 560 So.2d 258, 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); see also Ross v. State, 664 So.2d 1004, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
(...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...1979) ; Ingraham v. State , 32 So.3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; McMillan v. State , 832 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ; Hart v. State , 761 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ; Carver v. State , 560 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).18 This is consistent with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(o......
-
Mattison v. Jones
...the record is clear that the case was tried on, and defense counsel defended him against, the two offenses charged. SeeHart v. State, 761 So. 2d 334, 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The Defendant's claim that the State probably would have amended the Information to the reduced charge of burglary o......
-
Hanner v. State
...2d DCA 2007); Desmond v. State, 576 So.2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); McMillan v. State, 832 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).DAVIS, C.J., and MORRIS and SLEET, JJ.,...
-
Andrews v. State
...DCA 2009) ; McMillan v.. State, 832 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ; Harris v. State, 789 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) ; Hart v. State, 761 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).BLACK, SLEET, and SALARIO, JJ.,...