LAZARO MORFFY, 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.
Morffy was convicted of several felonies based on an information signed by an assistant state attorney who had not been sworn in beforehand. The Florida appellate court reversed his conviction, holding that failure to administer an oath to the prosecutor before signing a felony information is reversible error when timely challenged by the defendant.
The court held that failure of a prosecutor to take the required oath before signing a felony information is reversible error and requires discharge of the defendant when the defendant timely and properly brings this defect to the trial court's attention. The error is not merely technical but constitutive of the constitutional and statutory requirement.
[1] A felony conviction must be reversed where the defendant was tried upon an information that was not sworn to by the prosecuting officer.
[2] A defendant's timely motion to dismiss an information based on the prosecuting officer's failure to take an oath prior to signing is a valid ground for reversal.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Article I, section 15, of the Florida Constitution, expressly provides that no person shall be tried for a felony without an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer.”
Establishes the constitutional requirement that the information must be under oath, signed by a sworn prosecutor.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorffy was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine with a firearm, attempted robbery without a firearm, possession of a controlled substance wit…
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 Resisting An Officer With Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Morffy was convicted for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine with a firearm, attempted robbery without a firearm, possession of a controlled substance without a firearm, and resisting an officer with violence. Morffy urges that the dispositive point on appeal is that he was tried upon an unsworn information. We agree and reverse.
Through counsel, Morffy timely filed a motion to dismiss the information, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c), on the ground that the assistant state attorney who signed the information was not sworn at the time. The uncontro-verted evidence adduced before the trial court discloses that while the information was signed by the assistant state attorney, the deputy court clerk who also was a secretary in the State Attorney’s office signed the information but failed to administer an oath to the assistant state attorney prior to his signing. Nonetheless, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss perceiving the error to be entirely technical in nature.
Article I, section 15, of the Florida Constitution, expressly provides that no person shall be tried for a felony without an information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(g) contains the identical requirement. See also § 923.03(2), Fla.Stat. (1987).
It is established that the failure of a prosecutor to correctly execute an information under oath, on timely motion, will result in reversal and discharge of a defendant. See Dobson v. State, 434 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (robbery conviction reversed where the assistant state attorney failed to sign information).
Compliance by the state attorney with the requirement of oath cannot be claimed to be an undue burden. This signal requirement exists to awaken the conscience of prosecutors and alert their sensibilities to the care to be used before exercising the power of the office in charging a citizen with a felony. Notwithstanding an eventual acquittal, being charged upon an unfounded accusation may dramatically and unendingly alter a person’s future status in society.
Our holding today is limited to the clear failure of an assistant state attorney to take the required oath before affixing his signature to a felony information and then only where a defendant timely and properly brings that error to the trial court’s attention. We acknowledge the longstanding rule of Champlin v. Cochran, 125 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1960) that where a defendant makes no attack on an information before or during trial, the failure of the prosecuting officer to attach an oath to an information is not fatal to conviction after defendant's pleading and trial on the merits. This is true because at this point the verity of the accusatory pleading has been supplied by other means. Because it is unnecessary, we explicitly decline to offer any view as to the possible effect of our holding upon possible defenses of limitation or the speedy trial rule.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s conviction is reversed with directions to discharge him.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mandell, 599 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…counsel conceded at oral argument that there would have been no challenge to the information if the secretary had administered the same oath in the same way, but in the capacity only as a notary public. Hence, Mandell’s reliance on Morffy v. State, 534 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), is misplaced. In that case, the assistant state attorney who signed the information was not sworn at all. In this case, the assistant state attorney was sworn, a key fact that distinguishes Morffy,1 Whether the secretary adminis…
-
Ferguson v. State, 744 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…entertained after the defendant pleads to the merits.” See also Byrd v. State, 730 So. 2d 382, 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Colson v. State, 717 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Montanez v. State, 630 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Morffy v. State, 534 So. 2d 733, 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Holt v. State, 516 So. 2d 25 [*559] (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Carey v. State, 349 So. 2d 820, 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Champlin v. Cochran, 125 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1960)
- Dobson v. State, 434 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)