Sparkman v. State

Supreme Court of Florida May 8, 1953

Sparkman v. State, 65 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1953)

1953 Fla. LEXIS 1298

Bring, Drew, Hobson, Mathews, Roberts, Terrell, Thomas

Dissenting Opinion

DREW, Justice

(dissenting).

The first information charged no offense. It was not defective because of any *311defect, omission or insufficiency in the contents or form. Therefore, it was not subject to amendment under 932.05, F.S.A. Provision for amendments is based upon the premise that what is amended' must charge an offense.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL, SE-BRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur. THOMAS, HOBSON and'DREW, JJ., dissent.

Reference

Full Case Name: Clyde L. SPARKMAN v. STATE of Florida
Status: Published