ABIDEEN OLADIPUPO, 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.
The court held that the defendant was erroneously convicted and sentenced for a felony when the charge specified a misdemeanor, and the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the misdemeanor charge.
The defendant was charged with giving a false age on a driver's license application, which is a second-degree misdemeanor under section 322.212(5) and…
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 Second-Degree Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
The defendant was charged with, convicted and sentenced, in the circuit court, for the offense of giving a false age in an application for a driver’s license, a violation of section 322.212(5), Florida Statutes, a misdemeanor of the second degree under section 322.212(6), Florida Statutes, punishable under section 775.082, Florida Statutes, to a maximum sentence of 60 days in jail. For this offense he was convicted for a third degree felony and sentenced to 180 days in the county jail with credit for 60 days time served.
Under section 322.212(6), Florida Statutes, all false statements in applications for driver licenses are felonies of the third degree except the giving of a false age which is a misdemeanor of the second degree. While the original information generally alleged all four alternative methods of violating section 322.212(5), Florida Statutes, the specification stated only that the defendant misrepresented his age. Therefore under the particular allegation and the provisions of section 322.212(6), Florida Statutes, the original charge alleged a second degree misdemeanor and the defendant was erroneously convicted and sentenced for a third degree felony. Furthermore, under section 26.012(2)(d), Florida Statutes, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over the second degree misdemeanor because it did not arise out of the same circumstances as a felony which was also charged.1 The defendant’s conviction of a violation of section 322.212(5), Florida Statutes, based on giving a false age in his application for a driver’s license, was illegal and void and his conviction is hereby
REVERSED.
GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . The defendant was also charged with the felony of resisting an officer with violence (§ 843.-01, Fla.Stat.) but that felony did not arise out of the same circumstances as the defendant’s misrepresentation of his age in the application for a license.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Coble, 704 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…misdemeanors. See State v. Neth, 615 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). However, where the circuit court erroneously asserts jurisdiction over a misdemeanor not arising from a felony, any conviction for the misdemeanor is void. See Oladipupo v. State, 574 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); White v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In this case, the misdemeanor charge against appellee was filed first in County Court. Subsequently, the felony charge arising from the same circumstances was filed again…
-
State v. Engel, 656 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…. See § 26.012(2), Fla.Stat. (1993) (circuit courts “shall have exclusive original jurisdiction: ... d) of all felonies and of all misdemeanors arising out of the same circumstances as the felony which is also charged”). See also Oladipupo v. State, 574 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (where appellant was charged with a misdemeanor but convicted of a felony in circuit court, conviction was void and illegal because appellant could only be convicted of the misdemeanor charged and, “the circuit court did not…
-
Harrell v. State, 721 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…filing of the petition. Thus it concluded, the newly discovered evidence argument was procedurally barred. This petition raises a fundamental defect in Harrell’s 1978 conviction, which if true, requires that it be set aside. See Oladipupo v. State, 574 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Zanger v. State, 548 So. 2d 746, 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Young v. State, 439 So. 2d 306, 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Brehm v. State, 427 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Solomon v. State, 341 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Brow…