Crain v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 812
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Crain was convicted as a habitual traffic offender for driving while his license was revoked.
- Crain asserts he never had a Florida driver’s license (or any license) at all.
- The information alleged violation of §322.34(5) for driving with revoked license; jury was instructed with added language about a driving privilege.
- Trial evidence and testimony suggested DHSMV treated a “driving privilege” as revocable even without a license.
- The court reversed the felony conviction and remanded to enter judgment for driving without a license, a lesser included misdemeanor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction under §322.34(5) is valid if Crain never had a license. | Crain (Crain) never possessed a license; thus no revoked license. | State argued revocation of a driving privilege could suffice. | Felony conviction reversed; cannot prove revoked license exists; remanded for driving without a license. |
| Whether §322.34(5) applies to drivers who never had a license. | Crain argues lack of license defeats the crime. | State relies on reading to include driving privilege as revocable. | Statute not applicable to those never issued a license; conviction improper. |
| Whether trial instruction misled jury by redefining driving privilege. | Instructions improperly added “driving privilege” variably. | State contends the term should be read in context of statute. | Instruction error contributed to erroneous conviction; favorable to reversal. |
| Appropriate remedy for improper conviction under §322.34(5). | Conviction for nonexistent crime should be corrected. | Remand for lesser included offense may be unnecessary if evidence insufficient. | Remand for entry of judgment for driving without a valid license; greater offense vacated. |
| Whether other statutory provisions support reading driving privilege as distinct from license. | Statutory scheme implies privilege can exist without a license. | Legislature did not enact driving privilege as equivalent to license for §322.34(5). | Statute interpreted strictly; cannot expand to cover unlicensed drivers; disfavored reading. |
Key Cases Cited
- F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2003) (fundamental error to convict when element not proved; preservation not required by objection)
- Rodriguez v. State, 964 So.2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (insufficient evidence to establish crime may be raised on appeal)
- Harris v. State, 647 So.2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (fundamental error to convict where crime did not take place)
- Ferguson v. State, 377 So.2d 709 (Fla. 1979) (strict construction of criminal statutes)
- Earnest v. State, 351 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1977) (principle of strict construction in criminal statutes)
- Carroll v. State, 761 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reading driving privilege as license through statutory interpretation not enacted)
- Bletcher v. State, 763 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (relying on Carroll’s reading of driving privilege versus license)
- Newton v. State, 898 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (per curiam affirmance citing Carroll and Bletcher)
- Patrick v. Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Veh., 895 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (concepts related to driving privilege and license)