WILLIE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Willie Williams was convicted of attempted armed robbery, armed kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The appellate court affirmed all convictions and sentences, rejecting challenges to the adequacy of the charging information, sufficiency of evidence, and trial court's evidentiary rulings.
The court held that the information was not fundamentally defective because it referenced the relevant statute defining kidnapping and Williams was adequately placed on notice of the crime; the evidence was sufficient to support the kidnapping conviction under the three-prong Faison test; and the trial court correctly excluded evidence of post-incident drug use absent a showing that prior drug use affected the witness' ability to observe, remember, or recount.
[1] An information referencing a statutory section that defines the elements of an offense is not fundamentally defective for failing to charge a crime if the defendant is ot…
[2] Evidence of a witness's drug use, occurring after the date of the incident in question and not at the time of trial, is inadmissible for impeachment purposes unless there…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Since that section defines the elements of the offense of kidnapping, including the intent to '[c]ommit or facilitate commission of any felony,' § 787.01(l)(a)2., Fla.Stat. (1991), and since the information also charged Williams with the felony of attempted robbery, he was placed on adequate notice of the crime charged and was not misled or embarrassed in the preparation of his defense.”
Establishes that the charging information was adequate because it referenced the statute defining the offense and charged the predicate felony, thereby providing notice of all elements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams approached a victim unlocking his house door, pointed a shotgun at the victim's head, and forced him across the street to the back of a churc…
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 Fundamental Defect In Information cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Willie Williams was convicted of attempted armed robbery, armed kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. We affirm the convictions and sentences.
First, Williams incorrectly contends that the failure to include an essential element of the offense of armed kidnapping, that the kidnapping occurred during the commission of, or to facilitate the commission of any felony, rendered the information fundamentally defective for failure to charge a crime so that a conviction for armed kidnapping could not be predicated thereon, even though no motion to dismiss this count of the information was ever filed below. The kidnapping count in the instant information specifically referenced section 787.01, Florida Statutes. Since that section defines the elements of the offense of kidnapping, including the intent to “[cjommit or facilitate commission of any felony,” § 787.01(l)(a)2., Fla.Stat. (1991), and since the information also charged Williams with the felony of attempted robbery, he was placed on adequate notice of the crime charged and was not misled or embarrassed in the preparation of his defense. DuBoise v. State, 520 So. 2d 260, 265 (Fla.1988); Cotton v. State, 395 So. 2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Williams’ second contention is that the evidence was insufficient to support his kidnapping conviction. We disagree. The evidence presented at trial revealed that Williams approached his victim as he was unlocking the door to his house. With a shotgun pointed at the victim’s head, Williams forced him across the street to the back of a church, told him to take off his shoes and drop his pants, searched him for money, then walked him to the side of the church and behind another house. Williams’ movement of the victim satisfies all three prongs of the test set forth by the supreme court in Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963, 965-66 (Fla.1983), and therefore supports the kidnapping conviction. See also Walker v. State, 604 So. 2d 475, 477 (Fla.1992). Finally, Williams claims he was deprived of a fair trial when the trial court refused his request to cross-examine a state’s witness about the witness’ drug use after the date of the incident in question. The supreme court has held that evidence of a witness’ drug use, other than at the time of trial or at the time of the incident, is not admissible to impeach the witness unless there is an express showing, by other relevant evidence, that the prior drug use affected his ability to observe, remember, or recount. Edwards v. State, 548 So. 2d 656, 658 (Fla.1989). Here, no such showing was made, and the trial court correctly excluded such evidence.
Accordingly, Williams’ convictions and sentences for the crimes charged are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Werner v. State, 689 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…d on adequate notice of the [infraction] charged and was not misled or embarrassed in the preparation of h[er] defense. DuBoise v. State, 520 So. 2d 260, 265 (Fla.1988); Cotton v. State, 395 So. 2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).” Williams v. State, 617 So. 2d 398, 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The present case differs importantly from Cottrill, where a licensee was found guilty of conduct never alleged, and from Delk v. Department of Professional Regula [*1214] tion, 595 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), where a lic…
-
Wright v. State, 752 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…[*139] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Edwards v. State, 548 So. 2d 656, 658 (Fla.1989); Williams v. State, 617 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).…
Authorities Cited
- Faison v. State, 426 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1983)
- DuBOISE v. State, 520 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1988)
- Derinda Edwards v. State, 548 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1989)
- Walker v. State, 604 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1992)
- Cotton v. State, 395 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)