State v. Hockett

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Hockett

735 So. 2d 545, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6765, 1999 WL 330204

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 26, 1999

DocketNos. 98-02826, 98-03657

StatusPublished

This text of 735 So. 2d 545 (State v. Hockett) 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

State v. Hockett, 735 So. 2d 545, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6765, 1999 WL 330204 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss the informations in these two interrelated cases because the State failed to allege an intent to defraud as an element of the offense described in section 319.33(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997). See State v. Copher, 395 So.2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); The trial court’s oral ruling allowed the State ten days to amend these informations, but the written order omitted this option. On remand, it is not necessary that the State have ten days within which to amend the informations. The State may amend at any time unless prevented by the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, the doctrine of res judicata, a statute of limitations, or the dismissal of the first case with prejudice. [546]*546See State v. Bacon, 385 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

Affirmed with instructions.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and GREEN and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss the informations in these two interrelated cases because the State failed to allege an intent to defraud as an element of the offense described in section 319.33(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1997). See State v. Copher, 395 So.2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); The trial court’s oral ruling allowed the State ten days to amend these informations, but the written order omitted this option. On remand, it is not necessary that the State have ten days within which to amend the informations. The State may amend at any time unless prevented by the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, the doctrine of res judicata, a statute of limitations, or the dismissal of the first case with prejudice. [546]*546See State v. Bacon, 385 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

Affirmed with instructions.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and GREEN and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

735 So. 2d 545, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6765, 1999 WL 330204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hockett-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack