STEPHEN G. BREHM, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the information failed to allege a prior conviction, which was necessary to elevate the offense to a felony.
The defendant was convicted of violating Section 877.08, Florida Statutes, and sentenced as a felon due to a prior conviction. The appellate court rev…
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 Felony Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was charged and convicted of ten counts of violating Section 877.08, Florida Statutes (1981).1 The sentencing phase brought to the court’s attention that the same defendant had been previously convicted of the same offense; to wit: tampering with parking meters. Accordingly, the trial court adjudicated and sentenced him for the enhanced offense as a felon as provided for by Section 877.08(3), Florida Statutes (1981).
The only point with which we are concerned is whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant in the present case. We find that it did not. Subject matter jurisdiction is determined from the face of the accusatory pleading. Pope v. State, 268 So. 2d 173 (Fla.2d DCA 1972), cert. discharged, 283 So. 2d 99 (FIa.1973); see also Ex Parte Reed, 101 Fla. 800, 135 So. 302 (1931).
The information charging the defendant with the violation of Section 877.08 failed to allege that the defendant had a prior conviction for the same offense. Consequently, the defendant could only have been guilty of a misdemeanor, over which the circuit court does not have jurisdiction.2
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s judgment and sentence are void. The cause is remanded with directions to quash the information with leave to amend or to refile it with the appropriate court at the election of the state.
In the present case, no petitions for rehearing will be entertained.
Reversed and remanded.
. He was also charged with loitering and prowling; however, he was granted a judgment of acquittal on that charge.
. Had the prior conviction been properly pled, the fact would not have been brought to the jury’s attention but rather, upon conviction, the court, in a separate proceeding, could determine whether there was a prior conviction and sentence the defendant accordingly. State v. Harris, 356 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1978).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Allen v. State, 463 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…information which properly and in good faith charges the commission of a crime cognizable in that court, and jurisdiction is to be determined solely from the face of the information. Pope v. State, 268 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Brehm v. State, 427 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); 15 Fla. Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 561; 13 Fla. Jur.2d, Courts and Judges, § 28. If the good faith allegations of the information, in and of themselves, do not demonstrate jurisdiction, then the cause should be dismissed with leave…
-
Zanger v. State, 548 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ar case, is that jurisdiction is to be determined solely from the face of the information. McLean v. State, 23 Fla. 281, 2 So. 5 (1887); State v. Vazquez, 450 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1984); Allen v. State, 463 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Brehm v. State, 427 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). When an indictment or information fails to show that the circuit court had jurisdiction, a conviction based on such indictment or information is void. Ex parte Reed, 101 Fla. 800, 135 So. 302 (1931); Pope v. State, 268 So. 2d 173…
-
Phillips v. State, 438 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…defect, not merely an imperfection in a felony charge that must be challenged by proper motion or else is waived. Christopher v. State, 397 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) [information captioned “Grand Theft” under § 812.014(2)(c) ]; Brehm v. State, 427 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) [information charging § 877.08 violation without alleging prior conviction for same offense]; see also State v. Black, 385 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980) [venue]; Pope v. State, 268 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 283 So. 2d…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 268 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- State v. Harris, 356 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Pope, 283 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1973)
- Ex parte Reed, 101 Fla. 800 (Fla. 1931)