Rodriguez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodriguez v. State

369 So. 2d 423, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14712

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 1979

DocketNo. 78-1031

StatusPublished

This text of 369 So. 2d 423 (Rodriguez v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rodriguez v. State, 369 So. 2d 423, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14712 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Juan Rodriguez appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict of guilty to the charge of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. We reverse and remand with directions to dismiss the defective information filed against the appellant.

The trial court erred when it denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the information where that information failed to recite the essential facts constituting the offense of aggravated battery. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(b) and 3.140(d). Ferrell v. State, 358 So.2d 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) is squarely on point and is dispositive of this appeal. The information sub judice charging aggravated battery is not significantly different from that set forth in Ferrell. Accordingly, the information was defective and should have been dismissed.

We have carefully considered the appellant’s remaining points on appeal, particularly the issue regarding whether he was entitled to discharge for a speedy trial violation. We find these points to be without merit. See generally State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, 253 So.2d 129 (Fla.1971); Savinon v. State, 277 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(c).

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Juan Rodriguez appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict of guilty to the charge of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. We reverse and remand with directions to dismiss the defective information filed against the appellant.

The trial court erred when it denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the information where that information failed to recite the essential facts constituting the offense of aggravated battery. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(b) and 3.140(d). Ferrell v. State, 358 So.2d 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) is squarely on point and is dispositive of this appeal. The information sub judice charging aggravated battery is not significantly different from that set forth in Ferrell. Accordingly, the information was defective and should have been dismissed.

We have carefully considered the appellant’s remaining points on appeal, particularly the issue regarding whether he was entitled to discharge for a speedy trial violation. We find these points to be without merit. See generally State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, 253 So.2d 129 (Fla.1971); Savinon v. State, 277 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(c).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 So. 2d 423, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack