County Traffic Court:  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Dismissal – specificity of uniform traffic citation – magistrate did not err in denying motion to dismiss – uniform traffic citation constitutes a valid charging document - uniform traffic citation issued for careless driving conveyed sufficient information to answer charges – Order affirmed.  Eadie v. State, No. 03-00024APANO (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. March 3, 2004).

 

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

 

 

 

JOSEPH J. EADIE,

                                    Appellant,

 

vs.                                                                   APPELLATE NO: CRC03-00024APANO

                                                                        LOWER COURT NO: 02-8410BXW

 

STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                    Appellee.

                                                            /

 

Opinion issued March _______, 2004.

 

Appeal from a decision of

North County Traffic Court;

Magistrate Bruce Taylor.

 

James A. Thomas, Esquire,

Attorney for Appellant.

 

Tammi E. Back, Assistant City Attorney,

Counsel for Appellee.

 

 

ORDER AND OPINION

 

Eadie appeals his conviction for careless driving.  He argues that the magistrate erred in denying his motion to dismiss on the basis that the Uniform Traffic Citation (UTC) failed to sufficiently apprise him of the specific reason for which he was cited for careless driving.  We affirm.

We review this case under the de novo standard.  Bell v. State, 835 So. 2d 392, 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“The standard of review for a trial court order regarding a motion to dismiss is de novo.”).  The offense of careless driving constitutes a noncriminal traffic infraction.  See § 316.655, Florida Statutes; Fla. R. Traf. Ct. 6.040(k).   A UTC operates as a charging document.  Fla. R. Traf. Ct. 6.040(b). 

A close examination of the UTC issued to Eaide reflects that a box designated “careless driving” is checked.  A different box designated “crash” is also checked.  Finally, a third box marked “property damage” is also checked, and a damage amount of $1500 is handwritten in this box.

The officer’s worksheet, which describes the incident in detail, was filed in the court file December 16, 2002, four days following the incident.  This worksheet indicates that Eadie was in the north left turn lane of Whitney Road turning south on Frontage Road of US 19.  It further indicates that the left rear of the trailer Eadie was pulling sideswiped the right side of a truck making a left turn in the south left turn lane of Whitney Road.  The worksheet notes “Eadie said he did not see the other vehicle.”

Given the foregoing, we believe that Eadie was fully apprised of the nature of his careless driving offense, and we conclude that the UTC was sufficiently detailed in this case.  Deel v. State, 750 So. 2d 112, 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“We conclude that the traffic citations conveyed all the information necessary to answer the charges and constituted a valid charging instrument.”).  Accordingly, the magistrate did not err in denying Eadie’s motion to dismiss. 

Request for oral argument denied.

Affirmed.

DONE AND ORDERED this ______ day of March, 2004. 

 

 

  


                                                                           DAVID A. DEMERS, Circuit Judge

 

 

  


                                                                           ROBERT J. MORRIS, JR., Circuit Judge

 

 

  


                                                                           IRENE SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge03