From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ingram v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 17, 1981
393 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

No. 78-1825.

February 17, 1981.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Paul Baker, J.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Robert R. Schrank, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART, C.J., and SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ.


The defendant Eric N. Ingram appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence based on two counts of obtaining property in return for a worthless check in excess of $50, [§ 832.05(4), Fla. Stat. (1979)] entered against him upon a jury verdict after trial in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. The defendant contends that the trial court committed fundamental error in: (a) failing to give any instruction whatever to the jury relating to a material element of the crimes for which he was charged and convicted, namely, the obtaining through a worthless check of "any services, goods, wares, or other things of value." [§ 832.05(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1979)]; and (b) misreading the pertinent counts of the subject information to the jury so as to omit the above material element as it was alleged therein. We entirely agree.

It seems clear beyond dispute that the jury here was completely misled as to what the defendant was charged with and had no knowledge whatever as to a material element of the crime which made these offenses felonies as opposed to misdemeanors [compare § 832.05(2), Fla. Stat. (1979)], a matter which went directly to the circuit court's jurisdiction to try this case. See § 26.012(2)(d), 34.01(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). It is, therefore, our view that the compounded error under consideration goes to the very foundation of this case and is fundamental in nature. Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134, 137 (Fla. 1970). The judgment of conviction and sentence under review must be and is hereby reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. See e.g. State v. Jones, 377 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 1979); Croft v. State, 117 Fla. 832, 158 So. 454 (1935); Williams v. State, 366 So.2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 375 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1979).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.


Summaries of

Ingram v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 17, 1981
393 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

Ingram v. State

Case Details

Full title:ERIC NEMIAH INGRAM, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Feb 17, 1981

Citations

393 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

5) (omission from self-defense instruction of right to resist if defendant believed himself in imminent…

State v. Williams

We note that even if the supreme court were subsequently to depart from the holding in Redondo, a new trial…