STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EFMIYA TAMVAKIS, JOSEPH FREDERICK CAPUZZO AND WILLIAM SOTO, APPELLEES
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.
The appellate court reviewed the State's appeal of non-final orders dismissing informations, which were signed by assistant state attorneys but not identified as such on the signature line, and affirmed the trial court's dismissal with leave to amend.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the informations, finding them technically defective, but noting the State was afforded leave to amend.
[1] An information is legally insufficient if it is signed by an assistant state attorney without identifying their status as an assistant state attorney on the signature lin…
[2] A designated assistant state attorney possesses full authority to sign an information.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State of Florida appealed orders dismissing informations that were signed by assistant state attorneys, although the body of the informations stat…
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 Charging Document Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Chief Judge.
The appellant, State of Florida, timely appeals non-final orders of the trial court dismissing various defendants’ informa-tions. The trial court ruled that the infor-mations were defective as a matter of form in that they were improperly signed by an assistant state attorney, although reciting in the body that the presecution was brought by the state attorney, Robert Ea-gan. Under the signature line at the end, “Robert Eagan, State Attorney,” appears. The informations are not signed by Robert Eagan, however, but by various assistant state attorneys. The identification of the status of the assistant does not appear at the signature line on the informations, only in the acknowledgements below. The issue on appeal is whether these defects render these informations legally insufficient.
The appellees acknowledge that a designated assistant state attorney has full authority to sign an information. See State v. Miller, 313 So. 2d 656 (Fla.1975). They argue, however, that the form is misleading. The signer is not described as an assistant state attorney under the signature line or in the body of the information. The appellees assert, and the lower court held, that the informations should recite that prosecution is being brought by the state attorney through the designated assistant state attorney who signed the information.
Although the issue raised by the defense motions may be pettifogging, the informa-tions were technically defective. It would have been a simple matter for the state attorney’s office to correct the errors in their form and be done with it. See Cantanese v. State, 251 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). The opportunity to do so was afforded by the trial court’s dismissal with leave to amend. Instead, the state elected to appeal. Adding insult to injury, it even filed an emergency motion to continue oral argument in this cause rather than waiving it, thereby enlarging the molehill. Certainly, the state and the court system should spend time on weightier matters.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smartmays v. State, 901 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…sed to double jeopardy. State v. Burnette, 881 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Technical defects must typically be raised at or before trial in order to be cognizable on appeal. See Ford v. State, 802 So. 2d 1121, 1130 (Fla.2001); State v. Tamvakis, 459 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Defects in a violation of probation charging document have traditionally been scrutinized by a lesser standard with the overarching consideration being protection of the probationer’s minimal due process rights. See Langbaum v.…
-
Mickey Dean Brown v. State, 493 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…either not guilty or guilty of a lesser included offense. See State v. Abreau, 363 So. 2d 1063, 1064 (Fla.1978). There is no merit to this point. AFFIRMED. BOOTH, C.J., and JOANOS, J., concur. . Appellant cites, as controlling, State v. Tamvakis, 459 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Tam-vakis is distinguishable because the defendant in that case had not pled to the merits when the objection was raised.…
-
Desir v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County) (M.D. Fla. 2022)…R. Crim. P. 3.140(j) (“An information on which the defendant is to be tried that charges an offense may be amended on the motion of the prosecuting attorney or defendant at any time prior to trial because of formal defects.”). State v. Tamvakis, 459 So. 2d 371, 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (“Although the issue raised by the defense motions may be pettifogging, the informations were technically defective. It would have been a simple matter for the state attorney’s office to correct the errors in their form and…
Authorities Cited
- Catanese v. State, 251 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- State v. Miller, 313 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1975)