Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Carl P. HENSON, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-01-18
Citations: 443 So. 2d 507
Docket Number: No. 83-1871
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Carl P. HENSON, Respondent.
Judges: ANSTEAD, C.J., and DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 443
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Carl P. HENSON, Respondent.
No. 83-1871.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 18, 1984.
Michael J. Satz, State Atty. and Teresa Beazley Widmer, Asst. State Atty., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
H. Dohn Williams, Jr., of Varón, Bogen-schutz, Williams & Gulkin, P.A., Hollywood, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, ruled that the state must charge violations of Sections 316.193(l)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1982) in separate counts of an information rather than combining allegations as to (a) and (b), as alternative theories of prosecution in a single count. We find no error in that ruling. Cf United States v. Starks, 515 F.2d 112 (3d Cir. 1975) and United States v. Goodman, 285 F.2d 378 (5th Cir.1960), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 930, 81 S.Ct. 1651, 6 L.Ed.2d 389 (1961). Accordingly, we deny the state's petition for writ of certiorari.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.