THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER/CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
EDWARD PEREZ, RESPONDENT/CROSS-PETITIONER
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.
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal held that a defect in the charging information was one of form rather than substance, and because the defendant suffered no prejudice and no double jeopardy risk existed, the conviction should be reinstated rather than reversed.
A defect in the form of an information does not void the charging document when there is no risk of double jeopardy and the defendant demonstrates no prejudice.
[1] A defect in the form of a charging information does not render the document void absent a risk of double jeopardy or demonstrated prejudice to the defendant.
[2] Section 790.06(12), Florida Statutes, is not a specific intent crime despite the statute's use of the word 'intentionally.'
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged by information containing a defect, and the circuit court's appellate division reversed the conviction based on this defect.…
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 Prejudice Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defect in the information was one of form, not substance. Because no risk of double jeopardy is present in the instant case and because the defendant has failed to demonstrate that 'he was prejudiced in any way as a result of the defect, the charging document is not rendered void as a result of the defect. Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1984). Therefore, we find that the circuit court, appellate division, departed from the essential requirements of law by reversing the defendant’s conviction based on the defect in the information. Accordingly, we grant the State’s petition and quash the portion of the circuit court’s opinion that holds otherwise.
The point raised m the defendant s cross-petition for writ of certiorari lacks merit. The circuit court, appellate division, correctly found that section 790.06(12), Florida Statutes (1995), is not a specific intent crime although the language of the statute includes the word “intentionally.” See Linehan v. State, 442 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), approved, 476 So. 2d 1262 (Fla.1985).
The remaining point raised by the State in its petition is moot as a result of our disposition.
Petition granted; decision of the circuit court quashed in part; cross-petition denied; and conviction reinstated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Linehan v. State, 476 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1985)
- Melvee Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1984)
- Linehan v. State, 442 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)