IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
JOSEPH J. EADIE,
vs. APPELLATE NO: CRC03-00024APANO
LOWER COURT NO: 02-8410BXW
Opinion issued March _______, 2004.
Appeal from a decision of
Magistrate Bruce Taylor.
James A. Thomas, Esquire,
Attorney for Appellant.
Counsel for Appellee.
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.
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
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.
DONE AND ORDERED this ______ day of March, 2004.
DAVID A. DEMERS, Circuit Judge
ROBERT J. MORRIS, JR., Circuit Judge
IRENE SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge03