LARRY L. BLAND, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Larry Bland petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the sufficiency of the burglary information under which he was convicted, arguing it failed to allege the essential element of intent to commit an offense. The Florida appellate court denied the petition, holding that reference to the relevant statutes in the charging document provided adequate notice of all elements of the crime.
The information was not fatally defective because it specifically referenced Sections 810.02(1) and 810.02(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which define all essential elements of burglary, thereby placing the defendant on adequate notice of the crime charged.
[1] A charging document that references a statute defining all elements of an offense provides adequate notice of the crime charged.
[2] A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be denied when prior appeals and motions have addressed the issues raised.
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“where a charging document specifically references a statute which specifies all the elements of the offense, a defendant is placed on adequate notice of the elements of the crime charged”
The controlling legal standard from DuBoise v. State that establishes when an information is sufficiently specific despite not explicitly listing every element
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 2, 1986, Bland was charged by information with burglary and attempted sexual battery. A jury found him guilty of burglary but not guilty of at…
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 Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on an original petition for writ of habeas corpus. We deny the petition.
On July 2, 1986, petitioner, Larry L. Bland, was charged by information with one count of burglary and one count of attempted sexual battery. A jury found petitioner guilty of the burglary count and not guilty of the attempted sexual battery count. Petitioner filed a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence which was per curiam affirmed by this court in Bland v. State, 513 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Petitioner next filed a motion to set aside judgment and sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 which was denied by the trial court and affirmed by this court. Bland v. State, 563 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Petitioner now asserts, for the first time, that the information under which he was charged is fundamentally defective in that it fails to allege “intent to commit an offense therein,” an essential element of the crime of burglary. The burglary count specifically provided that petitioner:
did unlawfully and without consent enter or remain in a structure, to wit: a dwelling, located at 2209 W. Jordan Street in the County and State aforesaid, the property of Wanda English as owner or custodian thereof, Larry Lafayette Bland did make an assault upon another person, to wit: Wanda English by choking her in violation of Sections 810.02(1) and 810.02(2)(a), Florida Statutes.
With respect to petitioner’s claim that the information is fatally defective, we find the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in DuBoise v. State, 520 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1988), to be controlling. In that case, the state cross appealed the post-trial order of arrest of judgment which claimed that the second count of the indictment for sexual battery was deficient in that it failed to allege an essentia] element of the crime — the use of actual force. In DuBoise, the Florida Supreme Court vacated the order and held that where a charging document specifically references a statute which specifies all the elements of the offense, a defendant is placed on adequate notice of the elements of the crime charged. Id. at 265.
In the present case, as the information under which petitioner was charged made reference to Sections 810.02(1), and 810.-02(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which specifically define the essential elements of the crime of burglary, we hold that petitioner was placed on adequate notice of the crime charged. Therefore, the petition must be denied.
DENIED.
SHIVERS, BOOTH and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Staton v. State, 636 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…imum sentence.” Notwithstanding, Staton urges that Bryant is not the current state of the law because of changes occurring in intervening years as reflected by such cases as Sullivan v. State, 562 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Bland v. Singletary, 601 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); DuBoise v. State, 520 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1988); Gordon v. State, 603 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Helmick v. State, 569 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We find those cases inapplicable to the issue raised by Staton. Those cases…
Authorities Cited
- DuBOISE v. State, 520 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1988)
- Bland v. State, 563 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)