FIRST DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS

        

THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT.  THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI.  INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.

 

DATE: Wednesday, November 26, 2025

CAPTION: STATE V. DESMARAIS

APPEAL NO.: C-250198 

TRIAL NOS.: 23/TRC/8578/B, 23/TRC/8578/C

KEY WORDS: OPERATING A VEHICLE WHILE INTOXICATED — SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION — SUFFICIENCY OF THE CHARGING INSTRUMENT — UNCHARGED OFFENSE — NUNC PRO TUNC — SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE — PROHIBITED CONCENTRATION — PER SE VIOLATION 

SUMMARY: The complaint, which generally charged defendant under the per se section of the statute criminalizing operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, was not defective and did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to hear the case where the complaint cited the “umbrella” paragraph in the prohibited concentration section of the statute and the State filed a bill of particulars prior to trial specifying the three statutory subsections upon which the prosecution premised its case, including sections for amphetamines and marijuana metabolite.

The trial court did not convict defendant of a nonexistent or uncharged offense where the record revealed that the court merely cited the wrong statutory subsection in its judgment entry but articulated the standard reflecting the correct statutory subsection in announcing its verdict in open court, but the cause must be remanded for the trial court to enter a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the record to reflect the statutory subsection of which defendant was convicted.

Defendant’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a prohibited concentration of marijuana metabolite in his urine was supported by sufficient evidence where the record showed that defendant was operating his vehicle and the defense stipulated to a laboratory report indicating defendant’s urine contained an amount of marijuana metabolite far in excess of the statutory threshold.

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART

JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; ZAYAS and CROUSE, JJ., CONCUR.