MARIO MACHIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Mario Machin, an inmate at a Florida correctional facility, was convicted of unlawfully introducing marijuana into a place of detention. On appeal, Machin challenged the legal sufficiency of the information charging him, arguing the facility was not adequately identified. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the information provided adequate notice of the charges.
The information was legally sufficient. The information provided adequate notice to Machin of the offense charged and did not mislead him or embarrass his defense preparation, nor did it expose him to double jeopardy.
[1] An information is legally sufficient if it fairly apprises the defendant of the offense charged and does not mislead or embarrass the defendant in the preparation of thei…
[2] An information is legally sufficient if it does not expose the defendant to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense after conviction or acquittal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The purpose of an information is to fairly apprise the defendant of the offense with which he is charged.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating the legal sufficiency of an information.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMachin was an inmate at the Florida Division of Corrections Road Prison at Big Pine Key in Monroe County. Upon returning late from a family furlough, …
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 Preparation Of Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant-appellant, Mario Machin, seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of unlawful introduction of contraband into a place of detention.
Defendant was an inmate at the Florida Division of Corrections Road Prison at Big Pine Key in Monroe County. One evening defendant Machin was late in returning to the camp following a family furlough and upon his arrival he was searched by the officers in charge whereupon marijuana was found in his possession. On appeal defendant argues that the information filed charging him with a violation of F.S. § 944.47, F.S.A. was legally insufficient because the Big Pine Key Road Camp was not identified as part of the Florida Division of Corrections.
The purpose of an information is to fairly apprise the defendant of the offense with which he is charged. Drozewski v. State, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 329. An information should not be dismissed “unless *465the court shall- be of the opinion that the indictment, information, or affidavit is so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.” CrPR 3.140(o), 33 F.S.A. The information hereunder review is sufficient under the above requirements to place defendant on notice. He was not misled or embarrassed in the preparation of his defense and he was not exposed to possible double jeopardy. State v. Moss, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 692; State v. Cossack, Fla.App.1967, 205 So.2d 344.
Defendant’s remaining point has been examined and found to be without sufficient merit to demand a reversal.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment and sentence hereunder review are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leeman v. State, 357 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1978)…, 81 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1955); Catanese v. State, 251 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). The purpose of an information is to fairly apprise defendant of the offense with which he is charged. Drozewski v. State, 84 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1955); Machin v. State, 270 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The information was sufficient and the motion to dismiss was properly denied. Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion for a bill of particulars and the court granted that part of the defendant's motion requesting: "1. Whether…
-
Martinez v. State, 368 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1978)…ction or [*340] acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.” Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(o ).3 See also, Brown v. State, 135 Fla. 30, 184 So. 518 (1938); Williams v. State, 92 Fla. 648, 109 So. 805 (1926); and Machin v. State, 270 So. 2d 464 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). Generally, an information is sufficient if it follows the language of the statute, Major v. State, 180 So. 2d 335 (Fla.1965); Gibbs v. Mayo, 81 So. 2d 739 (Fla.1955); and Harrell v. State, 79 Fla. 220, 83 So. 922 (1920), and need…
-
Carey v. State, 349 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ch was filed against appellant, it is our opinion that it fully apprised appellant of the offense with which he was charged and was written in substantial compliance with the language of the statute appellant had allegedly violated. Machin v. State, 270 So. 2d 464 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); State v. Bruno, 107 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1958). We therefore find no error on the part of the trial court in denying the motion to dismiss said indictment. Appellant’s final point concerns the introduction into evidence of the controlle…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Drozewski v. State, 84 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1955)
- State v. Moss, 206 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- State v. Cossack, 205 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)