ANNA BEATRICE ALLEN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Florida Supreme Court upheld a welfare fraud statute against a constitutional vagueness challenge, holding that the statute's requirement that fraud be committed through false statements or representations provides sufficient notice to the public of prohibited conduct.
The statute is not unconstitutionally vague because the statutory requirement that guilt be established only upon showing fraudulent and misrepresentational securing of public assistance provides sufficient specificity to notify the public of the prohibited conduct and meets the constitutional standard that a statute need only advise the average citizen of common intelligence of the offense proscribed.
[1] A statute prohibiting obtaining welfare assistance by fraud is not unconstitutionally vague if it requires proof of fraudulent intent or deceitful motives.
[2] A statute withstands a vagueness challenge if it is sufficient to advise the average citizen of common intelligence of the offense proscribed.
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 statutory requirement which cures appellant's objection is that before guilt can be established one must have fraudulently and by misrepresentation secured public assistance for himself or assisted others in receiving it. This requirement alerts the public that the statute is aimed at those who, by malicious or deceitful motives, cheat the government by fraudulent conduct.”
Establishes that the fraud requirement in the statute provides sufficient specificity to cure vagueness concerns
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnna Beatrice Allen pleaded nolo contendere to obtaining welfare assistance by fraud in violation of Florida Statutes Section 409.325(1). She reserved…
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 Criminal Statute Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYD, Justice.
Appellant was convicted in the County Court of Duval County on a nolo contendere plea of obtaining welfare assistance by fraud, contrary to Section 409.325(1), Florida Statutes. She reserved the right to appeal to challenge the constitutionality of the statute on the ground that it is vague.1
The statute follows:
“409.325 Fraud. — (1) Whoever knowingly obtains, attempts to obtain, or aids or abets any person in obtaining or attempting to obtain, by means of a false statement or representation, by false impersonations, or by other fraudulent device, assistance or service to which he is not entitled or assistance or service greater than that to which he is justly entitled; or whoever willfully makes any unauthorized disposition of any food commodity donated under any program of the federal or state government; or whoever, not being an authorized recipient thereof, willfully converts to his own use or benefit any such food commodity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082 or § 775.083.”
Appellant complains that the statute lacks requirements and conditions sufficiently specific to protect someone, who, although technically not qualified to receive public welfare, does so in good faith.
In Moore v. State, 505 S.W. 2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), the Texas “public welfare fraud” statute, with language nearly identical to that of our statute, was upheld against a “vagueness” attack. We agree with the Texas court that the language is sufficient to notify the public of the conduct it prohibits.
The statutory requirement which cures appellant’s objection is that before guilt can be established one must have fraudulently and by misrepresentation secured public assistance for himself or assisted others in receiving it. This requirement alerts the public that the statute is aimed at those who, by malicious or deceitful motives, cheat the government by fraudulent conduct.
In Erwin v. State, 262 So. 2d 677 (Fla.1972), we said:
“So long as the statute is sufficient to advise the average citizen of common intelligence who may be involved, of the offense proscribed, it withstands the assault of vagueness.” At 678, 679.
The statute meets that standard. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur. . During the proceedings appellant moved to dismiss because the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The motion was denied. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const.