McMillan v. State
| Decision Date | 27 December 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D02-462.,5D02-462. |
| Citation | 832 So.2d 946 |
| Parties | Gerald McMILLAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Meghan Ann Collins, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Richard E. Doran, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Belle B. Schumann, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
McMillan appeals his convictions for armed robbery with a firearm and resisting an officer without violence. He argues that the trial court erred in (1) allowing the state to reopen its case, (2) instructing the jury on armed robbery with a firearm when that offense was not charged, (3) violating separation of powers by charging McMillan with an offense not charged in the information, and (4) violating McMillan's due process rights by convicting him of an offense not charged in the information. We affirm.
All of McMillan's arguments are founded upon his assertion that he was charged with armed robbery with a weapon rather than armed robbery with a firearm. McMillan was charged by information as follows:1
COUNT ONE
The state correctly notes that McMillan failed to challenge the information prior to trial as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190. "Where a defendant waits until after the State rests its case to challenge the propriety of an indictment, the defendant is required to show not that the indictment is technically defective but that it is so fundamentally defective that it cannot support a judgment of conviction." Ford v. State, 802 So.2d 1121, 1130 (Fla.2001). This rule is designed to discourage defendants from waiting until after a trial is over before contesting deficiencies in charging documents which could have easily been corrected if they had been pointed out before trial. Id. Where the charging document is merely imperfect or imprecise, the failure to challenge it by motion to dismiss waives defect. State v. Wimberly, 459 So.2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). On the other hand, where an information totally omits an essential element of the crime or is so vague, indistinct or indefinite that he is misled or exposed to double jeopardy, it is fundamentally defective. Id. The overriding concern is whether the defendant had sufficient notice of the crimes for which he is being tried.
In the instant case, the caption charged armed robbery with a weapon and recited the statute applicable to that crime. These technical defects are not fatal. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.140(d)(1); Sanders v. State, 386 So.2d 256, 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The determinative questions are whether the information charged every element of the offense of robbery with a firearm and whether it misled McMillan. The specifications of the information alleged each essential element of the crime of armed robbery with a firearm. See §§ 812.13(1) and (2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). The information sufficiently notified McMillan that he was charged with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clavelle v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:16-cv-781-J-39PDB
...question is whether the information "is so fundamentally defective that it cannot support a judgment of conviction." McMilan v. State, 832 So.2d 946, 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (quoting Ford v. State, 802 So.2d 1121, 1130 (Fla. 2001)), denial of post conviction relief aff'd in part, rev'd in p......
-
Smith v. State
...court. Roberts v. State , 374 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 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 cons......
-
Moseley v. Sec'y Dep't of Corr., Case No. 5:09-cv-378-Oc-29PRL
...charging instruction are waived if the defendant does not raise them before the state rests its case." Id. (citing McMillan v. State, 832 So. 2d 946, 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)). With respect to untimely challenges to technical deficiencies in the information or indictment, Florida courts have......
-
Figueroa v. State
...2010) (affirming conviction for armed robbery where information specifically cited subsection of robbery statute); McMillan v. State, 832 So.2d 946, 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (same). The reference to section 775.087 in the body of the information, a section under which Figueroa's judgment and......