GLORIA WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Gloria Williams appealed a trial court's denial of her motion to dismiss an information charging her under Florida's theft statute (§ 812.014). The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Williams's constitutional challenges to the statute's clarity and the adequacy of the charging information.
The Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Williams's motion to dismiss on all three grounds: (1) the statute is not unconstitutionally vague under prior precedent; (2) the statute's title satisfies constitutional requirements if it does not mislead a person of average intelligence and puts that person on notice to inquire into the statute's body; and (3) the information was sufficient because it expressly charged Williams with endeavoring (an overt act) to obtain or use a wallet and money.
[1] A statute is not unconstitutionally vague if its meaning has been previously determined by the court.
[2] A statute's title need not index all of its contents; it is sufficient if the title is not misleading and puts a person of average intelligence on notice to inquire into…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The title of a statute need not index all of the statute's contents. The proper test is whether the title is so worded as not to mislead a person of average intelligence as to the scope of the enactment and is sufficient to put that person on notice and cause him to inquire into the body of the statute itself.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating whether a statute's title satisfies Florida constitutional requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGloria Williams was charged under section 812.014(1), Florida Statutes, with endeavoring to obtain or use a wallet and money. She moved to dismiss the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Dismiss Information cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this case Gloria Williams appeals a trial court order denying her motion to dismiss the information against her and upholding the constitutionality of the statute under which she was charged, section 812.-014(1), Florida Statutes (1977).
Williams here raises three points for our consideration. The first of these — that section 812.014 is unconstitutionally vague— was recently rejected by the Court in State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1978). See also State v. Belgrave, 364 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1978); State v. Lewis, 364 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1978); Dunnigan v. State, 364 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1978).
Second, Williams asserts that the statute violates article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution in that the statute’s title does not adequately apprise a person of average intelligence of the statute’s contents. We disagree. The title of a statute need not index all of the statute’s contents. The proper test is whether the title is so worded as not to mislead a person of average intelligence as to the scope of the enactment and is sufficient to put that person on notice and cause him to inquire into the body of the statute itself. Pruitt v. State, 363 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1978); Mayo v. Polk Co., 124 Fla. 534, 169 So. 41, appeal dismissed, 299 U.S. 507, 57 S.Ct. 39, 81 L.Ed. 376 (1936); Butler v. Perry, 67 Fla. 405, 66 So. 150 (1914), aff’d, 240 U.S. 328, 36 S.Ct. 258, 60 L.Ed. 672 (1916). Measured by this rule, the title to section 812.014 meets the constitutional requirements.
Third, Williams asserts that the information against her is deficient as it does not contain a specific averment of some overt act constituting criminal attempt. In State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10, 12 (Fla. 1978), the Court construed the term “endeavors” as meaning “an overt act.” Since the challenged information expressly charged Williams with endeavoring to obtain or use a wallet and money, the information was sufficient.
Having considered the points raised, we affirm the order of the trial court denying Williams’ motion to dismiss.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Franklin v. State, 887 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2004)…tment and [be] sufficient to put that person on notice and cause him to inquire into the body of the statute itself.” Loxahatchee River Envtl. Control Dist. v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach County, 515 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla.1987) (quoting Williams v. State, 370 So. 2d 1143, 1144 (Fla.1979)). Our determination that the single subject of an act can be found in the short title is subject to the following caveat: the title of an act may be general, “so long as it is not made a cover to legislation incongruous in itself.”…
-
Loxahatchee River Env't Control Dist. v. Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty., 515 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1987)…st is whether the title is so worded as not to mislead a person of average intelligence as to the scope of the enactment and is sufficient to put that person on notice and cause him to inquire into the body of the statute itself. Williams v. State, 370 So. 2d 1143, 1144 (Fla.1979). Measured by this criterion, we believe that the reference to modifying certain standards relating to the State Building Code constituted sufficient notice for purposes of article III, section 6. In fact, the District does not argue…
-
In the Interest of D.N. v. State, 529 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…2.014 violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, State v. Belgrave, 364 So. 2d 1225 (Fla.1978), and has held that the title of the bill enacting section 812.014 meets constitutional requirements. Williams v. State, 370 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.1979). In State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1978), the trial court had found the statute invalid on two grounds: one, that omission of the words “with unlawful intent” left it devoid of any specific intent element; and two, that the term “end…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1978)
- Dunnigan v. State, 364 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Monty Ray Belgrave and Stephen Roger Smith, 364 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Lewis, 364 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1978)
- Butler v. J. W. Perry as Sheriff, 67 Fla. 405 (Fla. 1914)
- Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (U.S. 1916)
- Mayo v. The Polk Co., 124 Fla. 534 (Fla. 1936)
- Skipper v. Schumacher, 299 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1936)
- Pruitt v. State, 363 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1978)