Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

370 So. 2d 1143

Docket No. 54416.

Williams v. State

Gloria WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided May 3, 1979.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1979-05-03

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2004

12 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The title of a statute need not index all of the statute's contents. The proper test is whether the title is so worded as not to mislead a person of average intelligence as to the scope of the enactment and is sufficient to put that person on notice and cause him to inquire into the body of the statute itself.”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including West v. State, 515 So. 2d 217 - LOXAHATCHEE RIVER ECD v. School Bd.

Relies on Butler v. Perry · 362 So. 2d 10 - State v. Allen · 364 So. 2d 1217 - Dunnigan v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-05-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1144 Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, Miami, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4In this case Gloria Williams appeals a trial court order denying her motion to dismiss the information against her and upholding the constitutionality of the statute under which she was charged, section 812.014(1), Florida Statutes (1977).

¶5Williams here raises three points for our consideration. The first of these — that section 812.014 is unconstitutionally vague — was recently rejected by the Court in State v. Allen, 362 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1978). See also State v. Belgrave, 364 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 1978); State v. Lewis, 364 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 1978); Dunnigan v. State, 364 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 1978).

¶6Second, Williams asserts that the statute violates article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution in that the statute's title does not adequately apprise a person of average intelligence of the statute's contents. We disagree. The title of a statute need not index all of the statute's contents. The proper test is whether the title is so worded as not to mislead a person of average intelligence as to the scope of the enactment and is sufficient to put that person on notice and cause him to inquire into the body of the statute itself. Pruitt v. State, 363 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1978); Mayo v. Polk Co., 124 Fla. 534, 169 So. 41, appeal dismissed, 299 U.S. 507, 57 S.Ct. 39, 81 L.Ed. 376 (1936); Butler v. Perry, 67 Fla. 405, 66 So. 150 (1914), aff'd, 240 U.S. 328, 36 S.Ct. 258, 60 L.Ed. 672 (1916). Measured by this rule, the title to section 812.014 meets the constitutional requirements.

¶7Third, Williams asserts that the information against her is deficient as it does not contain a specific averment of some overt act constituting criminal attempt. In State v. Allen, 362 So.2d 10, 12 (Fla. 1978), the Court construed the term "endeavors" as meaning "an overt act." Since the challenged information expressly charged Williams with endeavoring to obtain or use a wallet and money, the information was sufficient.

¶8Having considered the points raised, we affirm the order of the trial court denying Williams' motion to dismiss.

¶9It is so ordered.

¶10ENGLAND, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

/370/so2d/1143 · .json · Public domain