STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
DAVID SCOTT CRITZER, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida sought certiorari review of a county court's dismissal of a Notice to Appear charging petit theft, arguing the notice adequately informed the defendant of the offense. The appellate court held that Notices to Appear need not meet the strict pleading standards of indictments and informations, and that the notice here satisfied Rule 3.125(g) requirements.
A Notice to Appear need not be held to the same strict pleading standards as indictments and informations. The notice at issue was sufficient because it named the offense, included the statute number, and provided a sufficiently detailed narrative enabling the defendant to prepare a defense. Rule 3.125(g) requirements were satisfied.
[1] A Notice to Appear is sufficient if it names the offense, the statute number, and includes a narrative detailed enough to enable the defendant to prepare a defense withou…
[2] Notices to Appear issued under field conditions by law enforcement officers are not held to the same strict standards as indictments and informations.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We doubt that the legislature and Florida Supreme Court intended Notices to Appear issued under field conditions by law enforcement officers to be held to the same strict standards as are indictments and in-formations.”
Establishes the core holding that Notices to Appear are subject to a different, less stringent pleading standard than formal charging documents.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state issued a Notice to Appear charging the defendant with petit theft under Florida Statutes Section 812.014. The notice named the offense, incl…
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 Common Law Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The state petitions this Court to issue a writ of common law certiorari to review a final order of the circuit court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit sitting in its review capacity. The circuit court affirmed a county court’s order dismissing the state’s Notice to Appear which had charged defendant with petit theft in violation of Section 812.-014, Florida Statutes (1977). The county court stated that the Notice to Appear failed to state the essential elements of the crime of petit theft.
We find that the notice to appear was sufficient to inform the defendant of the nature of the offense charged. Compare, Martinez v. State, 368 So. 2d 338 (Fla.1978).
We doubt that the legislature and Florida Supreme Court intended Notices to Appear issued under field conditions by law enforcement officers to be held to the same strict standards as are indictments and in-formations. Prosecution of misdemeanors by Notices to Appear is given a special section in the Rules of Criminal Procedure,1 as is prosecution in county court for violation of ordinances by affidavit or docket entries. See McElroy v. Brown, 311 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 319 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1975). Moreover, Rule 3.125(g) specifically lists what, is required to appear in a valid notice to appear. The Notice' to Appear sub judice named the offense, the statute number, and included a narrative which was sufficiently detailed to enable the defendant to prepare a defense without being embarrassed. The requirements of Rule 3.125(g) were satisfied. See The Florida Bar. Re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 343 So. 2d 1247 (Fla.1977); In re Clarification of Florida Rules of Practice and Procedure (Florida Constitution, Art. V, § 2[a]), 281 So. 2d 204 (Fla.1973).
For these reasons, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted; the order of the circuit court is vacated and the cause is remanded with directions to the circuit court to vacate the order of the county court and remand with directions to reinstate the notice to appear. It is so ordered.
CROSS and ORFINGER, JJ., concur
. See Rules 3.125, 3.140(a)(2), Fla.R.Crim.P.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Clarification OF Florida Rules OF Practice AND Procedure (Florida Constitution, 281 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1973)
- The Fla. Bar. re Fla. Rules of Crim. Procedure, 343 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1977)
- Martinez v. State, 368 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1978)
- Boyette v. State, 311 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Boyette v. State, 319 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1975)
- Fla. Steel Corp. v. Dickinson, 319 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1975)