Case No. CI01-002386-XX
Appeal No.: 01-21
JOHN WILLIAM RASHLEY, JR.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
____________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
This is an appeal from the county court of Highlands County, Judge Olin Shinholser presiding. The Appellant, John William Rashley, Jr., was adjudicated guilty of careless driving and had his driver=s license suspended for one year. Appellant seeks review of the judgment and sentence. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c). The ruling of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
On March 16, 2001, the Appellant was involved in a traffic accident while driving westbound on S.R. 700 in Highlands County. Appellant’s vehicle struck Robert Wolleck, who was riding his bicycle on or near the right side of the road, and killed him. Appellant was traveling 55 miles per hour during this time. The only witness to the accident was Larry Emert, who was driving a motor home at a rate of 55 miles per hour and testified that he saw the incident through his side view mirror. No citation was issued at the scene of the accident. About 5 weeks later, Appellant received a traffic citation in the mail where the box for checked for careless driving and Florida Statute §316.1925(1) is identified. Appellant requested and was granted a hearing.
At the traffic infraction hearing, Mr. Emert testified that Appellant’s vehicle was off the right side of the road, in the dirt, at the time of impact and struck Mr. Wolleck from behind with the center of his vehicle. Appellant testified that after Mr. Wolleck was passed by Mr. Emert’s motor home, he veered approximately two to four feet into the lane before Appellant struck Wolleck’s rear tire with the far front side of his vehicle. Two photographs were entered into evidence, the first showing the road at the approximate point of the accident and the second showing Appellant’s vehicle with damage only to the front right side. Corporal Vann of the Florida Highway Patrol testified that the point of impact was about two to three feet away from the side of the road and that the point of impact on the vehicle was at the extreme front right side, which corroborates the photograph and Appellant’s testimony. Following the hearing, an order was issued adjudicating Appellant guilty of careless driving. By and through counsel, Appellant filed a timely appeal.
Appellant raises two issues on appeal, each of which will be addressed in turn. First, the Appellant argues that he was denied due process because the traffic citation was not a proper charging document since it failed to make any specific references as to what actions constituted the basis of the charge. The Appellant was charged with careless driving in violation of '316.1925(1), which states in part:
[a]ny person operating a vehicle upon the streets or highways within the state shall drive the same in a careful and prudent manner, having regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and all other attendant circumstances, so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. Failure to drive in such manner shall constitute careless driving and a violation of this section.
Appellant claims that a defendant has a right to know from the language of the charge against him what conduct on his part is the basis of that charge, citing to Robinson v. State, 152 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1934). Trial counsel did not move to dismiss the charge before the traffic hearing, but rather raised the objection for the first time during closing arguments. The Court finds that by not filing a motion to dismiss the charge before the traffic hearing, Appellant waived any right to contest the sufficiency of the charging document. Had a timely objection been made, the uniform traffic citation would still be considered a valid charging document pursuant to Uniform Traffic Court Rule 6.040(b).
Second, Appellant argues that there was no competent, substantial evidence by which the trial court could have determined that the Appellant drove in a careless manner. Having reviewed the record in this case, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. In forming its decision to find Appellant guilty of careless driving, the trial court appropriately weighed the testimony taken at the hearing as well as the physical evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the judgment and sentence of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
ORDERED June 2002.
CHARLES B. CURRY, Chief Judge