STATE
v.
HUDSON
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 appellate court reversed Wyman Street Hudson's conviction for a traffic violation because the summons charging him with "improper starting from stopped position" failed to adequately apprise him of the specific ordinance he was alleged to have violated (§30-53.1 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code), violating his due process rights.
The conviction and sentence are reversed because the summons was fatally defective for failing to apprise Hudson of the specific ordinance allegedly violated, thereby denying him due process of law by not providing adequate notice of the nature of the charge.
[1] A criminal charge must apprise a defendant of the nature of the offense with sufficient definiteness to enable preparation for trial.
[2] A summons charging an offense must direct the defendant's attention to the specific statute or ordinance allegedly violated.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the fundamental due process requirement that a defendant receive adequate notice of the charges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHudson was charged via summons with "improper starting from stopped position." He pleaded not guilty but was found guilty of violating §30-53.1 of the…
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 Ordinance Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before this court on the appeal of Wyman Street Hudson from a final judgment of conviction and sentence in the metropolitan court of Dade County.
Appellant was charged in a summons of the offense of “improper starting from stopped position.” Appellant pled not guilty to the charge and was found guilty of a violation of §30-53.1 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, and judgment and sentence entered thereon. §30-53.1 reads as follows —
“No person shall move a vehicle which is stopped, standing or parked, unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.”
There is nothing in the language of the charge set forth in the summons that would direct the defendant-appellant’s attention to the section of the code allegedly violated by him.
In order to afford a defendant due process of law, it is essential that he be apprised of the nature of the offense for which he is *128charged (see Wright v. Worth, 83 Fla. 204, 91 So.87) with such definiteness and reasonable certainty as fully to apprise him of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and enable him to prepare to meet it at his trial. See Gray v. State (1909), 58 Fla. 54, 50 So. 538, and 17 Fla. Jur., Indictments and Informations, §§25, 26, p. 223, et seq. An instrument that, although attempting to charge an offense, sets forth facts which, if true, would constitute no offense is so fatally defective that a conviction cannot be based upon it. Criver v. State (1926), 92 Fla. 483, 109 So. 417.
In general, to charge one with an offense defined by statute, the offense should be charged in the very language of the statute or in language of equivalent import. Humphreys v. State (1879), 17 Fla. 381. In the instant case, neither the language of the ordinance was set forth nor was the alleged charge in such equivalent language really sufficient to put the defendant on notice of the section of the code which he had allegedly violated.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the conviction and sentence of the appellant is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wright v. Worth, 83 Fla. 204 (Fla. 1922)
- Humphreys v. State, 17 Fla. 381 (Fla. 1879)
- Will Gray v. State, 58 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1909)
- Criner v. State, 92 Fla. 483 (Fla. 1926)