JAMES EDWARD LOVE, 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.
James Edward Love, a Florida Highway Patrol captain, appealed his conviction for two counts of grand theft, challenging the adequacy of the charging document and the sufficiency of evidence. The appellate court affirmed his conviction, finding both the indictment sufficiently specific and the evidence legally sufficient to support the charges.
Count II of the information was sufficiently specific, tracking the statutory language of Section 812.014 and describing the factual events with particularity, and therefore properly survived Love's motion to dismiss. The State presented sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case on both counts, warranting denial of Love's motion for judgment of acquittal.
[1] An information is not vague, indistinct, or indefinite if it tracks the language of the relevant statute and describes with particularity the alleged factual events const…
[2] A motion to dismiss an information for vagueness should be denied if the information is not so vague as to mislead the accused, embarrass the preparation of the defense,…
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“To dismiss an information for vagueness, the information must be "so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense."”
Establishes the legal standard for vagueness challenges to charging documents under Florida procedure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLove, while serving as a captain in the Florida Highway Patrol, had repair costs for his personal tractor charged to the State. Additionally, he arran…
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 Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Love appeals from his conviction of two counts of grand theft. He challenges the adequacy of the charging document as to one count and the sufficiency of the evidence against him as to both counts. We affirm.
The gist of the allegations was that Love, while a captain in the Florida Highway Patrol, had the costs of repairs to his personal tractor charged to the State and had parts replaced on a Florida Highway Patrol car at state expense after arranging to purchase the car himself.
Love first contends Count II of the information was vague, failed to charge a crime, and should have been dismissed. Count II of the information stated:
And DONALD S. MODESITT, as State Attorney aforesaid, further charges that JAMES EDWARD LOVE between the 1st of MARCH, 1980, and the 7th of APRIL, 1980, in the County of Suwannee and State of Florida, did knowingly obtain or use, or did endeavor to obtain or to use United States currency or new parts for an automobile of the value of $100.00 or more, the property of the STATE OF FLORIDA, with the intent to permanently deprive the STATE OF FLORIDA of a right to the property or a benefit therefrom or to appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto, by having MOTT CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, INC., install new engine parts on Florida Highway Patrol motor vehicle number 208 shortly before the vehicle was to be traded in and then purchasing the vehicle personally, contrary to Section 812.014, Florida Statutes. To dismiss an information for vagueness, the information must be “so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.” Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(o). Count II tracked the language of Section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1981). Count II also described with some particularity the alleged factual events the State considered a violation of the statute. The trial court properly denied Love's motion to dismiss Count II. State v. Dilworth, 397 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1981).
Love also contends the evidence against him was legally insufficient and, therefore, the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal allowing the case to go to the jury. A defendant moving for judgment of acquittal admits the facts adduced in evidence and every conclusion favorable to the State fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom. Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666, 670 (Fla.1975), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 3227, 49 L.Ed.2d 1221 (1976). After carefully reviewing the record, we cannot say the State failed to present a prima facie case.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kiser v. State, 455 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…the defendant’s establishing a pattern of committing new crimes within a short time after his release from any incarceration, was not precluded by the rule as a reason for departure from the recommended guideline sentence. See also Hendrix v. State, 450 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); and Manning v. State, 452 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). AFFIRMED. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.…
-
In the Interest of S.P.L. v. State, 512 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…tate, 478 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits all facts adduced and every conclusion favorable to the adverse party that might fairly and reasonably be inferred from the evidence. Love v. State, 450 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Here, the condition of the moped with which S.P.L. was found — broken ignition, missing license tag, partially removed serial number — and the time at which he was found with it, support the inference that it was recently stolen…
-
Douglas v. State, 627 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…that the transaction could take place. By moving for judgment of acquittal, the appellant admitted the facts and all reasonable inferences favorable to the state, and thus the evidence was sufficient to send the case to the jury. See Love v. State, 450 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Since there is substantial competent evidence to support the jury verdict on this point, it should not be disturbed. Dupree v. State, 615 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), rev. denied, 623 So. 2d 495 (Fla.1993). As to the second…
Authorities Cited
- Pulliam v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 911 (U.S. 1976)
- Simkins Indus., Inc. v. Moreira, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975)
- Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975)
- State v. Dilworth, 397 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1981)