Case Name: Ulysses JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-06-23
Citations: 415 So. 2d 852
Docket Number: No. 81-230
Parties: Ulysses JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 415
Pages: 852–855

Head Matter:
Ulysses JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 81-230.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
June 23, 1982.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Julianne Piggotte McLarty, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Barbara Ann Butler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Day-tona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
ORFINGER, Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment of conviction of the crime of burglary of a structure. We affirm.
Appellant contends that the information charging him with burglary was deficient because it did not allege that his entry into the structure was without the consent of the person alleged to be the owner or custodian thereof. In Hicks v. State, 407 So.2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), we held that under the burglary statute, section 810.02(1), Flor ida Statutes (1979), non-consensual entry into the premises was an essential element of the crime of burglary, and failure to allege the element of non-consent made the information susceptible to dismissal upon proper motion. Here, however, there was no motion to dismiss the information filed in the trial court, and the point is raised for the first time on appeal.
There is a difference between an information that completely fails to charge a crime and one where the charging allegations are incomplete or imprecise. The former is fundamentally defective. State v. Dye, 346 So.2d 538 (Fla.1977). However, where the information is merely imperfect or imprecise, the failure to timely file a motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c) waives the defect and it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Brewer v. State, 413 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), [1982 FLW 820]; Kane v. State, 392 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The test to determine if an information is fatally defective is whether there is a total omission of an essential element of the crime, or whether the indictment or information is so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense, or expose him after conviction or acquittal to the substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense. State v. Fields, 390 So.2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). If the information recites the appropriate statute alleged to be violated, and if the statute clearly includes the omitted words, it cannot be said that the imperfection of the information prejudiced the defendant in his defense. Bass v. State, 263 So.2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), cert. denied, 271 So.2d 142 (Fla.1972). See also, United States v. Arteaga-Limones, 529 F.2d 1183 (5th Cir. 1976).
Appellant further contends that there is an absence of proof that the structure, a gasoline station, was entered without consent of the owner or custodian. The information alleged that the structure was "the property of Paul Loomis as owner or custodian thereof." Evidence was presented at trial that Paul Loomis was in charge of the station on the night of the entry, although his brother was the actual owner of the property, and that Paul Loomis had not given appellant consent to break a window and thereby enter the station at night when it was closed. The allegations and proof were sufficient to charge ownership for the purpose of proving burglary. Ownership, for this purpose, means any possession which is rightful against the burglar and is satisfied by proof of special or temporary ownership, possession or control. In Interest of M. E., 370 So.2d 795 (Fla.1979); Patterson v. State, 391 So.2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Adirim v. State, 350 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
We have considered appellant's final point and find it to be without merit.
The judgment of conviction is
AFFIRMED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents with opinion.
. In Hicks, defendant had moved to dismiss the information on the specific ground that this necessary allegation was not contained in the information and the motion had been denied. 407 So.2d at 252.