State v. Miller
193 So. 3d 1001
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Daryl Miller was charged under Fla. Stat. § 322.34(5) (driving while license revoked as a habitual traffic offender).
- Miller had never been issued a Florida driver’s license; that fact was undisputed in the record.
- Miller filed a sworn motion to dismiss; the trial court treated it as a motion to reduce the charge to the lesser included offense of driving without a valid license (§ 322.03).
- The trial court concluded an element of § 322.34(5) is that the defendant previously had a Florida driver’s license that was revoked, which Miller could not satisfy.
- The court adjudicated Miller guilty of the lesser included misdemeanor (driving without a valid license) and dismissed the felony habitual-offender charge.
- The district court affirmed, relying on strict construction of penal statutes and aligning with the First DCA’s reasoning in Crain; it certified conflict with several other district courts that reached the opposite conclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 322.34(5) requires prior issuance of a driver’s license (i.e., a revocable license) | State: Person need not have been issued a license; a revoked "driving privilege" suffices (per Carroll) | Miller: Statute requires revocation of a license; because he never had a license, § 322.34(5) cannot apply | Held: § 322.34(5) requires a revoked driver’s license/driving privilege previously granted; Miller could not be convicted under § 322.34(5) because he never had a Florida license; conviction reduced to driving without a license |
| Whether courts should infer broader "driving privilege" language into the statute | State: Courts may treat revoked driving privilege equivalent to license revocation | Miller: Courts must apply statute as written and not read in unexpressed language | Held: Penal statutes are strictly construed; courts may not read language into statute; Legislature knows how to criminalize driving without a license when intended |
| Whether precedent from other districts controlling (conflict between districts) | State: Carroll and other district decisions support conviction without prior license | Miller: Follow Crain and strict-construction decisions | Held: Court follows Crain-style reasoning, disagrees with Carroll, Newton, Bletcher; certified conflict with those districts |
| Appropriate remedy when statutory element not met | State: Upheld § 322.34(5) conviction in some districts | Miller: Reduce to lesser included offense (driving without a valid license) | Held: Trial court correctly reduced charge and adjudicated Miller guilty of lesser offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkins v. State, 576 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1991) (penal statutes must be strictly construed)
- Carroll v. State, 761 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (held a person may be convicted under habitual-offender statute without ever having had a license)
- Guilder v. State, 899 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (courts must apply statutes as written; leave inconsistencies to legislature)
- State v. Sullivan, 966 A.2d 919 (Md. 2009) (a person without a license/privilege cannot be convicted of driving while revoked)
- City of Billings v. Gonzales, 128 P.3d 1014 (Mont. 2006) (no privilege to suspend where no license or statutory authorization existed)
- State v. Bowie, 999 P.2d 947 (Kan. 2000) (person who never had a license cannot be charged with driving while suspended)
- Francis v. Municipality of Anchorage, 641 P.2d 226 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982) (cannot convict for suspension where defendant never had a license)
- City of Aberdeen v. Cole, 537 P.2d 1073 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975) (DMV cannot suspend what defendant did not have)