From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cappetta v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 11, 1980
380 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Summary

In Cappetta, the defendant was charged by information with participation in a conspiracy which occurred "between the 1st day of May, 1979 and the 29th day of May, 1979."

Summary of this case from York v. State

Opinion

No. 79-1549.

March 11, 1980.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr.

A. John Goshgarian, Miami, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and James H. Greason, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL and BASKIN, JJ., and EZELL, BOYCE F., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge.


Defendant, Anthony Cappetta, appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss information as being vague, indefinite and overbroad.

Cappetta was informed against for conspiracy to commit robbery and/or burglary. The information alleged that the conspiracy occurred "between the 1st day of May, 1979 and the 29th day of May, 1979". Subsequently, the prosecution filed a statement of particulars pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(n) and again stated "the alleged offenses occurred between May 1 and May 29, 1979". Cappetta moved to dismiss the information on the ground that the time period in which the alleged conspiracy occurred as set forth in both the information and statement of particulars was so vague, indefinite and overbroad as to mislead and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense. Following a hearing, the trial judge denied the motion to dismiss. Thereupon, Cappetta entered a plea of nolo contendere and reserved his right to appeal. The trial judge accepted the plea, placed him on probation and imposed a $1,000 fine. Cappetta then filed the instant appeal from the order denying his motion to dismiss the information.

Conspiracy is an offense which especially demands the application of the rule that an information or indictment state, with as much certainty as the nature of the case will permit, the facts which constitute the crime intended to be charged. See 16 Fla.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 1553 (1979) and cases cited therein. The law has therefore become well established that if the crime of conspiracy has been alleged to have occurred between certain specified dates (as in the instant case between May 1 and May 29) then the information or indictment must allege that the conspiracy was continuing throughout that specified period or that the conspiracy commenced at the beginning of that period and was not accomplished until the end. See State v. Dayton, 215 So.2d 87, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Glasgow v. State, 292 So.2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); and State v. Barnett, 344 So.2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). See also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(d)(3). The information in the case at bar fails to allege either that the conspiracy continued through the period of May 1st-May 29th or commenced on May 1st and was not accomplished until May 29th. Thus, we conclude the information was insufficient as a matter of law and Cappetta's motion to dismiss should have been granted.

Accordingly, the information is hereby dismissed and the order placing Cappetta on probation and fining him $1,000 is revoked.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Cappetta v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 11, 1980
380 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

In Cappetta, the defendant was charged by information with participation in a conspiracy which occurred "between the 1st day of May, 1979 and the 29th day of May, 1979."

Summary of this case from York v. State

In Cappetta, the third district held that if the crime of conspiracy has been alleged to have occurred between certain specified dates (as in the instant case between December 9 and December 21) then the information or indictment must be dismissed unless it is alleged that the conspiracy was continuing throughout that period or that the conspiracy commenced at the beginning of that period and was not accomplished until the end.

Summary of this case from State v. Kopulos
Case details for

Cappetta v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY WALTER CAPPETTA, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 11, 1980

Citations

380 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

Citing Cases

York v. State

At the motion hearing, the state conceded unlawful vagueness as to the conspiracy count, but sought leave to…

State v. Kopulos

Appellees were charged by information with conspiracy to traffic in cannabis in an amount in excess of 100…