01-1874 ALONSO V. STATE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 01-1874 ALONSO V. STATE

Case Date: 12/11/2002

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2002

LINO ALONSO, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

** ** ** ** ** Appellee. ** CASE NO. 3D01-1874

LOWER TRIBUNAL NO.

98-22157

Opinion filed December 11, 2002. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Dorothy F. Easley, Special Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Richard E. Doran, Attorney General, and Erin Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before JORGENSON, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ, JJ. PER CURIAM. Lino Alonso appeals his convictions for sexual battery on a minor less than twelve years old and for lewd, lascivious, K. Zack,

indecent assault upon a child.

We affirm.

Alonso argues that the Information should have been dismissed for vagueness because it does not specify exactly when he molested the child. We disagree. The Information does not

lack specificity and does not require dismissal under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(d)(3). See State v. Jones, 539

So. 2d 535, 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ("It is not necessary that the exact date of the offense be alleged in an information if that date is not known. It is sufficient to allege that the

offense occurred within stated specific time limits."). Alonso next argues that his convictions on both counts violate double jeopardy. Alonso is mistaken; the acts charged

were distinct, occurred at different times, and the charges were supported by evidence. See Morman v. State, 811 So. 2d 714, 717

(Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (similar acts sufficiently separated by time did not involve double jeopardy); see also Saavedra v. State, 576 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Alonso further argues that his statements to the polygraph examiner evidence. were and the detective should have been excluded as

This argument also lacks merit. Before Alonso made any

Alonso's statements statements to the

voluntary.

polygraph examiner, he was read his Miranda rights and signed a Miranda waiver form. We further find that Alonso was not

2

coerced. 1981).

See La Rocca v. State, 401 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA

Affirmed.

3

Download 01-1874 ALONSO V. STATE.pdf