 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BEXLEY v. STATE4/18/1997
ty of this subsection in the pleadings filed in both courts. We are not persuaded by the appellant's claim that he did not have reasonable notice of the charge against him when he proceeded to circuit court. See Fearn v. City of Huntsville, 568 So.2d 349, 350 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), and McLaughlin v. City of Homewood, 548 So.2d 580, 583 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988) (holding that even unauthorized amendments to a complaint are subject to a harmless error analysis).
II.
The appellant also contends that his motion to dismiss should have been granted because, he argues, the UTTC, by alleging facts descriptive of an offense under subsection (a)(1) but by citing a violation of subsection (a)(2), "failed to state an offense." (Issue I in brief of appellant.) However, the UTTC properly stated an offense; any miscitation of the applicable Code section was "mere surplusage." Frazier v. City of Montgomery, 565 So.2d 1255, 1256 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990).
The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All Judges Concur.
|