State v. Burnette, 1D03-3178.
Decision Date | 30 August 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 1D03-3178.,1D03-3178. |
Citation | 881 So.2d 693 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Steven Jayson BURNETTE, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charlie Crist, Attorney General; Alan R. Dakan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellant.
William Mallory Kent, of The Law Office of William Mallory Kent, Jacksonville, for appellee.
The state appeals an order setting aside a jury verdict of guilty and granting a motion for new trial.1 The trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that a technical discrepancy between the caption and the body of the information was not waived by appellee's failure to raise the issue prior to the verdict; therefore, we reverse.
Appellee was charged by an amended information for incidents occurring in October 2002. The caption of the information states, "Burglary (Dwelling)." The body of the information described count I as follows:
STEVEN JAYSON BURNETTE on the 21st day of October, 2002, in the County of Duval and the State of Florida did unlawfully enter or remain in a structure, to wit: a building, the property of John Joseph Persin, with the intent to commit an offense therein, to-wit: theft, contrary to the provisions of section 810.02(3), Florida Statutes.
During the trial, without objection, the trial court informed the jury that Burnette had been "accused of the crimes of burglary to a dwelling" and resisting an officer without violence. The defense presented no evidence at trial that the structure was not a dwelling. Burnette's defense was that he entered the mobile home because he heard an alarm coming from inside and went into the home out of concern for the victim. The state also presented evidence that the structure was indeed the home of the victim.
The trial court gave the standard jury instruction for burglary, including the definitions of "theft," "structure," and "dwelling." Defense counsel made no objection to the instruction as given. The jury returned a guilty verdict, finding Burnette guilty of burglary "as charged in the information." The special verdict form had a check next to the statement "We, the jury, further find that the structure was a dwelling."
Almost a month after the verdict and prior to sentencing, Burnette's newly appointed counsel filed an amended motion for new trial, alleging that the court erred in permitting the state to argue that defendant had committed a burglary of a dwelling when defendant was charged only with burglary of a structure. The trial court granted the amended motion for a new trial, citing Troyer v. State, 610 So.2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
The standard of review in this case is de novo because the trial court granted a new trial based on a matter of law, not for lack of sufficiency of the evidence. See Geibel v. State, 817 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
(. ) Here, the trial court found that the discrepancy between the heading and the body of the charging document was prejudicial error. The trial court, however, failed to recognize the general rule that a defect in an information is waived if no objection is timely made so long as the information does not wholly fail to state a crime. See Williams v. State, 547 So.2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. Duarte, 681 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Catanese v. State, 251 So.2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Where a defendant waits, as here, until after the state rests its case to challenge the propriety of an indictment, the defendant is required to show not only that the indictment is technically defective, but that it is so fundamentally defective that it cannot support any judgment of conviction. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190 and 3.610; Ford v. State, 802 So.2d 1121, 1130 (Fla.2001) ( ).
An information is fundamentally defective only where it totally omits an essential element of the crime or is so vague, indistinct or indefinite that the defendant is misled or exposed to double jeopardy. See McMillan v. State, 832 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
. As explained in DuBoise v. State, 520 So.2d 260 (Fla.1988), the "reason for this provision [rule 3.610] is 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. at 264-65. Furthermore, the failure to include an essential element of a crime does not necessarily render an indictment fundamentally defective when the indictment references a specific section of the criminal code which sufficiently details all the elements of the offense. Id. Here, the body of the information charged appellant with violation of section 810.02(3), the statute and section for burglary, a second-degree felony; the second page of the Amended Information attached to the Order Granting New Trial cites section 810.02(3)(b), which specifically describes burglary of a dwelling.2
See, e.g., Fulcher v. State, 766 So.2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
( ); Morales v. State, 785 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ( ).
In McMillan, the heading of the information charged appellant with armed robbery with a weapon and cited that statute, but the body of the information alleged the elements of armed robbery with a firearm. McMillan, 832 So.2d at 946. As in this case, the defendant failed to object at trial until he was convicted of the armed robbery with a firearm. The appellate court found that these errors were technical and were not fatal, noting that "[t]he determinative questions are whether the information charged every element of the offense... and whether it misled McMillan." Id. at 948. The court affirmed the conviction for robbery with a firearm.
In Mesa v. State, 632 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), the defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm and given an enhanced sentence. The charging document referenced the correct statute, but it did not expressly allege the use of a firearm. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence despite this defect because it found the defendant waived any error by failing to file a motion to dismiss the information. Id. at 1095-1096. In Mesa the court framed the issue and upheld the convictions as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
James v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:16-cv-491-J-34JRK
...it cannot support a judgment of conviction." Ford v. State, 802 So. 2d 1121, 1130 (Fla. 2001) (emphasis added); State v. Burnette, 881 So. 2d 693, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).Detective Chizik was an investigating officer for this case. In his arrest report, Detective Chizik stated he spoke to t......
-
Connolly v. State
...document is prior to the jury's verdict so the deficiency can be cured, not after the verdict is rendered. State v. Burnette, 881 So.2d 693, 693–94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Additionally, the specific argument or legal ground raised on appeal must have been raised and argued below. Bertolotti v.......
-
Thornton v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...the Information was not defective and properly charged Thornton with both actual and constructive possession. See State v. Burnette, 881 So. 2d 693, 695 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)(noting that "the failure to include an essential element of a crime does not necessarily render an indictment fundamen......
-
Hubbard v. Sec'y
...the crime or is so vague, indistinct or indefinite that the defendant is misled or exposed to double jeopardy." State v. Burnette, 881 So. 2d 693, 694-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Petitioner fails to assert on what basis counsel should have objected to the Information. Similarly, other than his ......