ROBERT G. FIKE, 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.
Fike appeals his conviction for selling marijuana, challenging the sufficiency of the charging information and the exclusion of witness reputation testimony. The Fifth District affirms, holding that an information alleging sale of cannabis sufficiently invokes felony jurisdiction despite any alternative misdemeanor construction, and that reputation evidence from a narrow community of criminal defense attorneys was properly excluded.
The court holds that the word "sale" by definition means delivery with consideration and is sufficient in itself to charge a felony, thus the information adequately invoked jurisdiction. The court also holds that reputation evidence must retain the quality of being "general" and not be confined to a narrow working community such as criminal defense attorneys, so the exclusion of the reputation testimony was proper.
[1] An information alleging delivery of cannabis without specifying the amount or consideration charges only a misdemeanor.
[2] An information alleging a "sale" of cannabis is sufficient to charge a felony, as "sale" implies delivery with consideration.
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“the word "sale" by definition means a delivery with consideration and is therefore sufficient in itself to charge a felony”
Establishes that sale of cannabis inherently charges a felony and provides sufficient basis for jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFike was charged by information with unlawfully and feloniously selling or delivering cannabis to another person. The state's principal witness was Ly…
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 Sale Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
Fike appeals from a judgment and sentence for the sale of marijuana. The information alleged that Fike “did unlawfully and feloniously sell or deliver to another person, Cannabis.”
The first question we address is whether the information was sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court. An information which charges delivery of cannabis without specifying the amount of the cannabis delivered or without alleging that the delivery was for consideration charges only a misdemeanor. Boley v. State, 273 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. discharged, 287 So. 2d 668 (Fla.1973); Pope v. State, 268 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), cert. discharged, 283 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1973). On the other hand, the word “sale” by definition means a delivery with consideration and is therefore sufficient in itself to charge a felony. State v. Stewart, 374 So. 2d 1381 (Fla.1979).
Thus, the information in this case alleges that Fike either committed a felony or a misdemeanor. In Nelson v. State, 398 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) and Young v. State, 439 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), this court held that an information which alleged in the alternative a felony or a misdemeanor was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court.
We now recede from our decisions in Nelson and Young. Fike was charged with and convicted of a felony. The court had jurisdiction to try the felony charge. We treat the portion of the information which alleged only a misdemeanor as mere surplusage. On this point we conflict with Rogers v. State, 336 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert, dism., 348 So. 2d 952 (Fla.1977), and Pope.
Fike also contends that it was error for the court not to permit testimony regarding the reputation for truth and veracity of the state's principal witness, Lyndon Bodner.
The testimony was to the effect that Bodner’s reputation in the “legal community” was questionable.
However, the “legal community” apparently consisted of criminal defense attorneys, rather than the bar as a whole. As the court pointed out in Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Hunt, 322 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. den., 336 So. 2d 600 (Fla.1976), the rule regarding use of reputation evidence from one’s working community should not be applied so as to confine the testimony to particular employees. Rather, the evidence must retain the quality of being “general.” See 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 347 (1967). Here, the community was too narrow and thus the exclusion of the reputation testimony was proper. AFFIRMED.
COBB, C.J., and ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur. DAUKSCH, J., dissents with an opinion in which COWART, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
I would adhere to our previous cases, cited in the majority opinion, and reverse the conviction for sale of cannabis. The state should be required to directly, specifically and concisely charge a person with a crime and not be duplicitous about it. To charge both a felony and a misdemeanor in one single count is duplicitous. The majority would excuse this ineptness or negligence by treating the misdemeanor words as surplusage and confirm jurisdiction in the felony court. Why not treat the felony words as surplusage and send the ease to misdemeanor court? Better yet, why not make the state do it right by reversing the conviction for lack of jurisdiction; that is both logical and fair. Nothing prevents the state from prosecuting under a proper information, except perhaps the statute of limitation. If the statute has run then it is the state’s fault and it is they who need the lesson.
COWART, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Ramsey v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1985)…OVERTON, Justice. We accepted jurisdiction in this case because the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s opinion, reported as Ramsey v. State, 456 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), cited as controlling authority State v. Fike, 455 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), which was pending review in this Court. See Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981). We approve the decision of the district court of appeal. See Fike v. State, 474 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.1985). It is so ordered. BOYD, C.J., an…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 472 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…s to the situation where the State charges a defendant with delivery of cannabis without specifying the amount of cannabis or that the delivery was for a consideration. We have held that such an information charges only a misdemeanor. Fike v. State, 455 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). See also Young v. State, 439 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).…
-
Wallis v. State, 548 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…jority result that reversal is required by reason of improper consolidation. I cannot agree that a charging document with superfluous allegations in the alternative renders the charge “legally insufficient.” We held to the contrary in Fike v. State, 455 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), approved, 474 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.1985); see also, Hamilton v. State, 129 Fla. 219, 176 So. 89 (1937); King v. State, 336 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 424 (Fla.1977), cert. dismissed, King v. Florida, 43…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Pope v. State, 268 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- State v. Pope, 283 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1973)
- Knotts v. State, 336 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- State v. Stewart, 374 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 1979)
- Boley v. State, 273 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Hunt, 322 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Puzzo v. State, 439 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Young v. State, 439 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- State v. Boley, 287 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1973)
- Raunel Ramos v. State, 398 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)