WILLIAM FRANK ALDERMAN
v.
STATE
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.
William Frank Alderman was convicted of embezzlement based on an information charging him with unlawfully converting $6,653.10 belonging to his employer, the Dantzler Lumber and Export Company. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the information was fatally defective because it failed to allege that the accused embezzled any specific property.
The information was fatally defective and failed to charge an offense of embezzlement because it contained no allegation that the accused actually embezzled any property. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the motion to quash was error.
“Even if the quoted count of the information charges with sufficient definiteness and directions that the accused did "unlawfully and feloniously embezzle," etc., there is no allegation that the accused embezzled any property, and for that reason the count being fatally defective to charge an offense of embezzlement, the motion to quash should have been granted.”
Establishes the core holding that the information failed to allege embezzlement despite charging embezzlement, making it fatally defective
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 1, 1929, William Frank Alderman was employed as an agent and servant of the Dantzler Lumber and Export Company and had possession, care, cu…
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 Sufficiency Of Information cases and more on FLexlaw
-This writ of error was taken to a judgment of conviction and sentence to five years’ imprisonment in the state prison, predicated upon the first count of an information purporting to charge embezzlement, sentence upon other counts of the information having been deferred by the trial court. The first count of the information charges “that William Frank Alderman, alias W. Frank Alderman, late of the County of Hillsborough aforesaid, in the State aforesaid, on the 1st day of October in the year of our Lord; one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine with force and arms at and in the County of Hillsborough aforesaid, was then and there the agent and servant of the Dantzler Lumber and Export Company, a corporation, and did then and there have in his possession, care, custody and control certain property, to-wit: six thousand, six hundred, fifty-three dollars and ten cents in money, a further description of which is to the Acting Solicitor unknown, of the *802value of six thousand, six hundred, fifty-three dollars and ten cents in money current of the United States of America, the property of the said Dantzler Lumber and Export Company, a corporation, and which said property had been entrusted to and had come into the possession, care, custody and control of the said William Frank Alderman, alias W. Frank Alderman, by reason of his employment as such agent and servant of the said Dantzler Lumber and Export Company, a corporation, as aforesaid, and did afterwards, to-wit: then and there, unlawfully and feloniously embezzle, fraudulently dispose of, and fraudulently convert to his own use, against the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.”
The information in substance alleges that on October 1st, 1929, in Hillsborough County, Florida, the accused was the agent and servant of the Dantzler Lumber and Export company, a corporation, and did then and there have in his possession, care, custody and control certain property, to-wit: $6,653.10 in money, of the value of $6,653.10, the property of the said Dantzler Lumber and Export Company, a corporation, and which said property had been entrusted to, and had come into the possession, care, custody and control of the accused by reason of his employment as such agent and servant as aforesaid “and did afterwards, to-wit: then and there, unlawfully and feloniously embezzle, fraudulently dispose of, and fraudulently convert to his own use; against the form of the statute,” etc.
. Even if the quoted count of the information charges with sufficient definiteness and directions that the accused did “unlawfully and feloniously embezzle,” etc., there' is no allegation that the accused embezzled any property, and for *803that reason the count being fatally defective to charge an ■ offense of embezzlement, the motion to quash should have been granted.
Reversed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.