STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ISAAC HARRIS, JR., 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.
Florida appealed the dismissal of an auto theft charge against Harris, who had lawfully rented a car but failed to return it on the due date. The trial court dismissed the information, finding the conduct constituted the lesser misdemeanor of failure to return a rented vehicle rather than felony auto theft. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal but clarified that the state was not required to prosecute under the less severe statute and could pursue alternative charges for criminal conversion under the larceny statute.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the auto theft information due to a fatal variance between the charge alleging Harris took possession 'without authority' and the proof showing he took possession with authority under the rental agreement. However, the court held that the state was not required to prosecute exclusively under the less severe misdemeanor statute and could pursue alternative charges for criminal conversion under Florida's omnibus larceny statute.
[1] A prosecutor has discretion to choose which statute to prosecute under when a single course of conduct violates multiple overlapping statutes with differing penalties.
[2] A fatal variance exists between a charge of auto theft alleging taking possession without authority and proof showing lawful initial possession.
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“It is not unusual for a course of criminal conduct to violate laws that overlap yet vary in their penalties. Multiple sentences are even allowed for conduct arising from the same incident. [Citations omitted.] Traditionally, the legislature has left to the prosecutor's discretion which violations to prosecute and hence which range of penalties to visit upon the offender.”
Establishes that prosecutors have discretion to choose among overlapping statutes and are not required to pursue the less severe option
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris lawfully rented an automobile from Rent-A-Nichols Car, Inc. on May 27, 1973, for one week. On June 3, he paid for and obtained an additional we…
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 Variance Between Charge And Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
McNULTY, Chief Judge.
Appellee Harris was charged by information with auto theft in violation of § 814.03(1), F.S.1973,1 a felony, in that with the intent permanently to deprive the owner of his property he “willfully and without authority took possession” of a certain automobile belonging to Rent-A-Nichols Car, Inc. He filed a motion to dismiss the charge, apparently under the criminal law version of the summary judgment rule, viz. Rule 3.190(c)(4), in which it undisputedly appears that he had lawfully rented a car from Nichols for one week on May 27, 1973. On June 3 he timely returned and paid for an additional week. He did not, however, return the car on the due date of June 10 and was thereafter arrested on the instant charge on June 16, 1973, while still in possession of the car. The court granted his motion and dismissed the information. This appeal ensued.
Harris argued to the trial court and argues here, that the undisputed facts show that he was guilty only of the offense of failure to return a rented car, a misdemeanor, as specifically proscribed by § 817.52(3). The trial court agreed and determined that since the offense committed was covered by the specific “failure to return” statute, rather than the general “auto theft” statute, due process “notice” requirements mandate that the state elect to prosecute under the less severe “specific” statute.
We must affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the charges herein but for reasons other than those stated. We think he was in error when he held that the state was required to prosecute under the specific, less punitive of two separate statutes proscribing essentially the same conduct but providing differing penalties. In a similar situation involving the receiving stolen property statute vis-a-vis the fraudulent credit card statute, our supreme court has most recently stated in Fayerweather v. State.
“It is not unusual for a course of criminal conduct to violate laws that overlap yet vary in their penalties. Multiple sentences are even allowed for conduct arising from the same incident. [Citations omitted.] Traditionally, the legislature has left to the prosecutor’s discretion which violations to prosecute and hence which range of penalties to visit upon the offender.”
Prosecution exclusively under the less severe statute is not therefore compelled.
The trial court was correct in dismissing the information, however, but for the reason that the undisputed facts patently establish a fatal variance between the charge and the proof. As noted, the charge specifically alleged that Harris “did willfully and without authority” take possession of the subject automobile. The undisputed proof shows that he in fact took possession with authority. This, we think, is a fatal variance. Nevertheless, that very proof, furnished by Harris himself, establishes that while he may have been in “rightful” possession, he may still have been guilty of “criminal conversion” of the automobile within the contemplation of Florida’s omnibus larceny statute, § 811.-021, F.S.1973, which among other things provides that one “ . . . who with intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his ... property or of the use and benefit thereof, . . . (b) having in his possession . . . as a person authorized by agreement . . . appropriates the same to his own use shall, upon conviction, be guilty of larceny.” If the value of the property, of course, is of the value of $100 or more the larceny is a felony.
Now, in dismissing the information filed herein the trial court did give the state leave to prosecute for the misdemeanor of failing to return a leased vehicle. But lest it be misunderstood, the state’s options in the premises ought not exclusively be limited to prosecution for the misdemeanor. As noted above, it may well be able to charge and establish a felony criminal conversion under the omnibus larceny statute.3
In view whereof the order appealed from should be, and it is hereby, affirmed; but the cause is remanded with leave to the state to pursue its options in accordance with this opinion.
BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur. . Repealed by c. 74-383, Daws of Florida, 1974.
. (Fla.1976), 332 So. 2d 21.
. Id. Cf. also State v. McCurdy (Fla.App.2d, 1972), 257 So. 2d 92.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Copher, 395 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…cute under is left to the prosecutor’s discretion. Soverino v. State, 356 So. 2d 269 (Fla.1978); Fayerweather v. State, 332 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1976); Crews v. State, 366 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 70 (Fla.1979); State v. Harris, 334 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). In Hutcherson v. United States, 345 F. 2d 964, 967 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 894, 86 S.Ct. 188, 15 L.Ed.2d 151 (1965), the court stated: Hutcherson’s next contention is that he was denied due process because he was indi…
-
State v. Weir, 488 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…, Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 104 S.Ct. 2536, 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984). See also Cilento v. State 377 So. 2d 663 (Fla. [*558] 1979); Fayerweather v. State, 332 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1976); Smith v. State, 383 So. 2d 959 (Fla.4th DCA 1980); State v. Harris, 334 So. 2d 674 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Beyond that, one can violate section 831.01 without violating section 817.481 or Part II Chapter 817, and vice versa. Traditional notions of double jeopardy and legal theories based upon that concept are no longer controlled by th…
-
State v. Lindsey, 501 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…vehicle was returned within a reasonable time. However, we conclude that the traverse sufficiently placed in contention the issues of intent, reasonable time and willful refusal. See State v. Pugh, 350 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); State v. Harris, 334 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). See also State v. Oberholtzer, 411 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1982) (once state files traverse specifically denying material facts alleged in defendant’s motion to dismiss, trial court has no alt…
Authorities Cited
- Fayerweather v. State, 332 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1976)
- State v. Benny Fred McCURDY, 257 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)