ROBERT GLEN FIKE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether an information charging sale or delivery of marijuana (mixing a felony and misdemeanor allegation) properly invokes circuit court jurisdiction. The Court held that the misdemeanor allegation constitutes mere surplusage, and the circuit court properly exercised jurisdiction over the felony charge.
The information sufficiently invoked circuit court jurisdiction over the felony charge. The portion alleging the misdemeanor is mere surplusage, and circuit courts have jurisdiction over all misdemeanors arising from the same circumstances as a charged felony. The defendant's failure to object before trial and Florida's broad discovery rules provide adequate protection without requiring rigid adherence to the common law 'four corners of the charging document' rule.
[1] An information alleging both a felony and a misdemeanor arising from the same transaction properly invokes circuit court jurisdiction for the felony charge, with the misd…
[2] A defendant must object to the clarity or sufficiency of an information before trial if the allegations are so vague as to impede defense preparation or risk double jeopa…
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“an information alleging delivery of marijuana, without specifying the quantity thereof or that the delivery was for consideration, charges only a misdemeanor.”
Establishes the legal distinction between felony sale and misdemeanor delivery of marijuana
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 marijuana, a controlled substance, in violation of Florida Statu…
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 Preparation Of Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This cause is before us on a petition to review Fike v. State, 455 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that an information alleging the sale [a felony] or delivery of an unspecified amount of marijuana [a misdemeanor] properly invoked circuit court jurisdiction. We find conflict with Rogers v. State, 336 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and approve the instant decision of the district court of appeal.
The information filed by the state specifically alleged that petitioner “did unlawfully and feloniously sell or deliver to another person, Cannabis, a controlled substance commonly known as Marijuana, in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(l)(a)(2); a Third Degree Felony.” Both parties agree that an information alleging delivery of marijuana, without specifying the quantity thereof or that the delivery was for consideration, charges only a misdemeanor. Petitioner was tried, convicted, and sentenced in circuit court for the sale of marijuana, a felony. No objection to the adequacy or clarity of the information or to the jurisdiction of the circuit court was raised before that court.
On appeal, petitioner argued that the information was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court because it alleged a felony or a misdemeanor.
The district court, in finding that the circuit court had jurisdiction to try the felony charge, concluded that the portion of the information that alleged a misdemeanor was “mere surplusage.” 455 So. 2d at 629.
Petitioner acknowledges that the information charged a felony. He proceeded to trial on that charge without asserting that the allegations in the information rendered it so vague, indistinct, and indefinite as to mislead and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him to a substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(o).
The circuit courts of this state have jurisdiction over all misdemeanors arising out of the same circumstances as a felony that is charged. See § 26.012(2)(d), Fla.Stat. (1981); art. V, §§ 5 and 6, Fla. Const. This Court has consistently held that our broad discovery rules afford the criminal defendant adequate protection against double jeopardy and the impeded preparation of a defense without rigid adherence to the common law “four corners of the charging document” rule. See State v. Phillips, 463 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.1985); Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1984); York v. State, 432 So. 2d 51 (Fla.1983).
Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court in the instant case, and disapprove the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Rogers v. State to the extent that it conflicts with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, ALDERMAN, MCDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramsey v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1985)…4), 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., and ADKINS, ALDERMAN, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.…
-
Vernal Earle Malcolm v. State, 605 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…delivery is a first-degree misdemeanor [§ 893.13(l)(f), Fla. Stat. (1979)]. We treat such alternative misdemeanor allegations, however, as "mere surplus-age" inasmuch as the sale of marijuana allegations clearly charged a felony. See Fike v. State, 474 So. 2d 1192 (Fla.1985).…
-
Wallis v. State, 548 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…son 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, 434 U.S. 802, 98 S.Ct. 30, 54 L.Ed.2d 60 (1977).…
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
- Melvee Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1984)
- Fike v. State, 455 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- State v. Phillips, 463 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1985)
- Knotts v. State, 336 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- York v. State, 432 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1983)