COUNTY OF DADE, STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
FRANCIS A. MOLONY, RESPONDENT
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.
County of Dade sought certiorari to overturn a circuit court's reversal of a driving-while-intoxicated conviction. The appellate court held that proof of a prior conviction is necessary only for enhanced punishment, not to establish the underlying offense, and therefore quashed the circuit court's reversal.
Proof of a prior conviction is necessary only for purposes of increased punishment and is not a required element to sustain a conviction for driving while intoxicated. Therefore, the circuit court erred in reversing the conviction based solely on the failure to prove the prior offense.
“the necessity of proving the prior or historical offense is for the purpose of increased punishment, and is not a necessary element to be established to sustain a charge in the first instance”
Establishes the core holding that prior convictions affect sentencing, not the substantive elements of the offense
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Molony was charged in Metropolitan Court with careless driving and driving while under the influence. The complaint was amended to allege a…
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.
This is a certiorari proceeding wherein the petitioner has filed its petition, seeking to have a certain portion of an order of the-circuit court quashed, which reversed in part a conviction in the Metropolitan Court of Dade County, Florida.
It appears that the respondent herein was charged [in one complaint in the Metropolitan Court] with careless driving and driving while under the influence of an in*239toxicating liquor, which original complaint was amended to show that the respondent had previously been convicted of driving while under the influence. At the time of the trial, no evidence was introduced as to the prior conviction and the trial court found the respondent guilty of reckless driving and driving while under the influence, and sentenced him as a first offender. An appeal was duly prosecuted to the circuit court, which resulted in an opinion of affirmance as to the reckless driving, but entered a reversal as to the driving while under the influence because of the failure to prove the prior conviction, it having been alleged in the original complaint as amended.
By these proceedings, the petitioner contends that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in holding that it was necessary to establish the prior offense to sustain the conviction in the instant cause. See: State v. Katz, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 60.
It appears from the opinion written by the able circuit judge that the sole basis for the reversal of the conviction for driving while intoxicated was the failure to prove the prior or historical offense and, in this determination, we find that he departed from the essential requirements of the law. It is apparent from the authorities in this State that the necessity of proving the prior or historical offense is for the purpose of increased punishment, and is not a necessary element to be established to sustain a charge in the first instance. See: State ex rel. Lockmiller v. Mayo, 88 Fla. 96, 101 So. 228; Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768, 119 So. 380; Lamb v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 884.
Therefore, so much of the circuit judge’s order of reversal as is here under review be and the same is hereby quashed, with directions to reinstate the judgment of conviction and sentence of the Metropolitan Court of Dade County, Florida.
Order quashed, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Davis, 203 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 1967)…was a former offense becomes relevant only in determining the degree of punishment that the recidivist must suffer. Sec. 775.09-775.11 Fla.Stat, F.S.A. (1965); State ex rel. Lockmiller v. Mayo, 88 Fla. 96, 101 So. 228 (1924); Dade County v. Molony, 175 So. 2d 238 (3d D.C.A.Fla. 1965). Davis was charged with possession of a pistol after he had been convicted of a felony. This crime cannot be committed unless the individual charged is an ex-felon. His prior conviction is a substantive element of the crime cha…
-
State v. Miranda, 26 Fla. Supp. 1 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1965)…ent alleged offense in November, 1963, but would likewise include the single offense of driving while under the influence alleged to have occurred in November, 1963. The recent opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal in Dade County v. Molony, 175 So. 2d 238, is in complete accordance with this view. In that case the appellate court held that a defendant could be found guilty as a first offender of the offense of driving while under the influence on an amended complaint identical to the instant case whe…
Authorities Cited
- Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768 (Fla. 1928)
- State v. Mayo, 88 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1924)
- State v. Katz, 108 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Lamb v. State, 151 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)