State v. Padgett

Miami-Dade County Circuit Court

State v. Padgett

21 Fla. Supp. 117

CourtCircuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County

DecidedOctober 12, 1962

DocketNo. 5268

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Fla. Supp. 117 (State v. Padgett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Padgett, 21 Fla. Supp. 117 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAM A. MEADOWS, Circuit Judge.

This matter came on before me upon the appeal of Edna Lalley Padget from her conviction in the metropolitan court in and for Dade County. She was charged with “driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of section 30-15(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County”.

She raised one point on appeal — “That the summons failed to charge an offense under the Metropolitan Code or in which the defendant would have knowledge of the offense in order to defend against same”.

After examining the record, it is apparent that the appellant did not attack the sufficiency of the complaint in the trial court by a timely motion to quash the charge. On appeal she states that the complaint was void because it did not state that “her driving ability was impaired.”

It is the opinion of this court that the complaint was sufficient to apprise the appellant of the offense with which she was charged. Therefore, it is considered, ordered and adjudged that the conviction be affirmed.

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

WILLIAM A. MEADOWS, Circuit Judge.

This matter came on before me upon the appeal of Edna Lalley Padget from her conviction in the metropolitan court in and for Dade County. She was charged with “driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of section 30-15(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County”.

She raised one point on appeal — “That the summons failed to charge an offense under the Metropolitan Code or in which the defendant would have knowledge of the offense in order to defend against same”.

After examining the record, it is apparent that the appellant did not attack the sufficiency of the complaint in the trial court by a timely motion to quash the charge. On appeal she states that the complaint was void because it did not state that “her driving ability was impaired.”

It is the opinion of this court that the complaint was sufficient to apprise the appellant of the offense with which she was charged. Therefore, it is considered, ordered and adjudged that the conviction be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Fla. Supp. 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-padgett-flacirct11mia-1962.