Burgess v. State
198 So. 3d 1151
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Burgess was stopped after a hit-and-run; records showed he was a habitual traffic offender and had no valid Florida driver's license.
- The State charged Burgess under §322.34(5) (third-degree felony for driving while a license revoked for habitual traffic offender status). The information alleged his "driver's license had been revoked."
- Burgess moved to dismiss under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(c)(4), alleging he never had a driver's license; the State failed to traverse, so the allegation was admitted.
- The trial court, bound by this court's precedent in Carroll v. State, denied dismissal; Burgess pleaded guilty reserving the denial for appeal and was sentenced to five years.
- The Second District (en banc) receded from Carroll, held §322.34(5) requires an actual issued driver's license that was revoked, reversed Burgess's felony conviction and sentence, and certified conflict with other district court decisions following Carroll.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Burgess) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §322.34(5) applies when defendant never had a physical driver's license | Burgess: statute requires an issued license; he never had one, so cannot be convicted under §322.34(5) | State: term "driving privilege" (used elsewhere) is broader; Carroll supports conviction even without an issued license | Court: §322.34(5) unambiguously requires an actual issued driver's license that was revoked; reversed conviction |
| Whether Carroll v. State remains controlling precedent | Burgess: Carroll is wrong and creates conflict with other DCAs | State: trial court was bound to follow Carroll | Court: receded from Carroll as wrongly decided; Carroll's reasoning conflicted with statutory definitions |
| Whether terms "driver's license" and "driving privilege" are interchangeable | Burgess: N/A (argues for plain meaning) | State/Carroll: used interchangeably to extend reach of §322.34(5) | Court: terms are distinct; legislature often uses "driver's license or driving privilege" disjunctively; "driver's license" has defined meaning as a certificate |
| Remedy and certification of conflict | Burgess: relief by dismissal of felony and potential release | State: N/A | Court: vacate felony judgment, dismiss felony charge, remand; certified conflict with Newton and Bletcher |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. State, 761 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (prior Second DCA decision holding §322.34(5) could apply absent an issued license; receded from here)
- Crain v. State, 79 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (held statute requires an issued license; cited approvingly in this opinion)
- Miller v. State, 193 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (Third DCA reached same conclusion as this opinion and certified conflict with Carroll)
- Newton v. State, 898 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (followed Carroll; conflict certified)
- Bletcher v. State, 763 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (followed Carroll; conflict certified)
- State v. Hackley, 95 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 2012) (discussed absurdity doctrine and limits on judicial rewriting of statutes)