Smith v. State, 218 So. 3d 996

Eugene Smith was charged with five counts arising from an incident where his car left the roadway, crossed a lane, mounted a sidewalk, and struck a bicyclist; he pleaded guilty to refusal to submit to testing and driving while license suspended (two misdemeanors) and went to trial on the remaining felonies.
The jury acquitted Smith on two felony counts and convicted him of reckless driving causing serious bodily injury; the court sentenced him to concurrent terms (364 days for misdemeanors; five years for the felony).
Incident conditions: early evening, clear weather, straight divided highway, witnesses testified Smith was not speeding and headlights were on; vehicle yaw marks indicated a sharp turn/slide before leaving the road.
Smith moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the State failed to show he acted recklessly and that the evidence suggested loss of control from a possible mechanical defect rather than willful or wanton conduct.
The trial court denied the motion; on appeal the Second District reviewed the denial de novo and examined whether the State proved willful or wanton disregard for safety under section 316.192(1)(a).
The court affirmed convictions/sentences for the misdemeanors but reversed the reckless driving conviction, concluding the evidence established negligence/carelessness, not the conscious, intentional indifference required for recklessness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for reckless driving under §316.192(1)(a)	State: facts of vehicle leaving roadway, yaw marks, and striking bicyclist support a finding of willful/wanton disregard	Smith: vehicle swerved due to loss of control or mechanical defect; evidence shows negligence, not conscious indifference	Reversed: evidence only supported careless/negligent driving, not willful or wanton conduct required for reckless driving
Post-reversal custody directive	State: (implicitly) may seek rehearing	Smith: entitled to immediate release after reversal	Court directed clerk to issue mandate for immediate release but noted State may move for rehearing/recall of mandate

Beard v. State, 842 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA) (standard of review for denial of motion for judgment of acquittal)
Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla.) (standard of appellate review cited)
Stracar v. State, 126 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA) (similar facts where leaving roadway on clear day supported negligence, not recklessness)
Del Rio v. State, 854 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA) (careless driving insufficient for reckless driving conviction)
Berube v. State, 6 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA) (improper turn/traffic violation did not establish recklessness)
State v. Esposito, 642 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 4th DCA) (low-speed impact on clear day insufficient for reckless driving)
W.E.B. v. State, 553 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA) (evidence of alcohol and overcorrection insufficient to prove willful or wanton conduct)