State v. White

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. White

443 So. 2d 469, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11313

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1137

StatusPublished

This text of 443 So. 2d 469 (State v. White) 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. White, 443 So. 2d 469, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11313 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, State of Florida, appeals from an order granting a motion to dismiss an amended information purporting to charge appellee, Marvin White, with four counts of bookmaking in violation of section 849.-25(1), Florida Statutes (1981). Appellee was charged with taking or receiving bets (on various dates) on professional baseball, football and college football games. The wording of the counts of the information tracked the wording of section 849.25(1). Appellee argues that the decision of this court in State v. Tate, 420 So.2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), requires that an information charging bookmaking, in order not to be fatally defective, must charge the defendant with the element of habitualness. Tate does not so hold, and we, therefore, reverse.

This court in State v. DiGuillio, 413 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), considered and sustained an information nearly identical with the amended information dismissed below. While the state must, in order to convict for the offense of bookmaking, prove more than an isolated act of placing a bet, if the information tracks the language of the statute in charging multiple acts, it is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

Reversed and remanded.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and RYDER and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, State of Florida, appeals from an order granting a motion to dismiss an amended information purporting to charge appellee, Marvin White, with four counts of bookmaking in violation of section 849.-25(1), Florida Statutes (1981). Appellee was charged with taking or receiving bets (on various dates) on professional baseball, football and college football games. The wording of the counts of the information tracked the wording of section 849.25(1). Appellee argues that the decision of this court in State v. Tate, 420 So.2d 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), requires that an information charging bookmaking, in order not to be fatally defective, must charge the defendant with the element of habitualness. Tate does not so hold, and we, therefore, reverse.

This court in State v. DiGuillio, 413 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), considered and sustained an information nearly identical with the amended information dismissed below. While the state must, in order to convict for the offense of bookmaking, prove more than an isolated act of placing a bet, if the information tracks the language of the statute in charging multiple acts, it is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

Reversed and remanded.

BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and RYDER and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 So. 2d 469, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-white-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack