SERGIO VALDES AND MEDARDO VALDES, APPELLANTS,
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.
The court held that convictions for violating Marine Fisheries Rules regarding specific crustaceans must be reversed due to lack of evidence proving the species, but convictions for interference with a Marine Patrol Officer are affirmed.
Sergio Valdes was convicted of violating Marine Fisheries Rules and interfering with a Marine Patrol Officer. The record lacked evidence that the crus…
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 Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sergio Valdes was convicted of violating Marine Fisheries Rules specifically relating to crustaceans of the species Panulirus argus (Counts III and IV). The record is devoid of any evidence to show that the crustaceans were of the species Panulirus argus. Since the State failed to prove all of the elements of the offense, Sergio’s convictions for Counts III and IV must be reversed.1
As to Sergio’s and Medardo Valdes’ convictions for interference with a Marine Patrol Officer (Count I), we affirm since there was sufficient evidence in the record which showed that Lt. Martina was a law enforcement officer. In light of our decision, we do not address the remaining issues raised on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm Sergio's conviction for Count I, reverse his convictions for Counts III and IV, and remand for resentencing. As to Medardo, we affirm his conviction for Count I.
. The State argues that this point was not preserved for appellate review since this specific argument was not made at the trial court. Even if this point was not raised below, this court may consider this point under the doctrine of fundamental error. “[C]onviction in the absence of a prima facie showing of the crime charged is fundamental error that may be addressed by the appellate court even though not urged below." K.A.N. v. State, 582 So. 2d 57, 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see Troedel v. State, 462 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1984); O’Connor v. State, 590 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 569 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review denied, 581 So. 2d 167 (Fla.1991); Dydek v. State, 400 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Troedel v. State, 462 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1984)
- Dydek v. State, 400 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Johnson v. State, 569 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- In the Interest of K.A.N. v. State, 582 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- O'Connor v. State, 590 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)