MARQUENTON HUFFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Marquenton Huffman appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing the state to amend the information after the jury was sworn, adding the words "Parish Hall" to the burglary count. The appellate court affirmed, finding no prejudice to the defendant's substantial rights from the amendment.
The trial court did not err in allowing the amendment because, even assuming the amendment was substantive, the state may amend an information during trial over the defendant's objection unless there is a showing of prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant, and Huffman failed to demonstrate such prejudice.
[1] A trial court may substantively amend an information during trial, even over the defendant's objection, absent a showing of prejudice to the defendant's substantial right…
[2] An amendment to an information that clarifies the location of a burglary by adding the name of a specific structure within a known address does not constitute a substanti…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the state may substantively amend an information during trial, even over the objection of the defendant, unless there is a showing of prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant.”
Establishes the legal standard for permitting substantive amendments to informations during trial; prejudice to substantial rights is the controlling factor.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHuffman was charged with burglary of St. Theresa Catholic Church and its thrift shop, and theft of personal property. The state amended the informatio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudice To Substantial Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
The original three count information charged Marquénton Huffman in Count I with burglary of the “St. Theresa Catholic Church located at 11528 S.E. Hwy. 301, Belleview, Florida ...” and in Count II of the “St. Theresa Catholic Church Thrift Shop located at 11935 S.E. Hwy. 301 Belleview, Florida....” Count III charged him with theft of several described items of personal property. He contends that the trial court erred by allowing the state to amend its information after the jury was sworn and the original information was read to the jury. He claims that the amendment was a substantive change because it was not alleged in the information that two separate structures were involved and that a more extensive list of personal property was described in the original information.
The amendments to the information simply added the words “Parish Hall” to the “St. Theresa Catholic Church” in Count I1 and deleted a few items of personal property in Count III. It was clear from the separate addresses in Counts I and II of both infor-mations that two structures were burglarized. Additionally, Huffman was apprehended in the parish hall with a duffle bag containing items from the thrift shop and admitted to the police that he had entered the parish hall looking for food. While Huffman objected to the amendments, he was not able to offer any explanation as to how he would be prejudiced by them. Assuming without deciding that the amendment was substantive, the court did not err in allowing the amendment because, “the state may substantively amend an information during trial, even over the objection of the defendant, unless there is a showing of prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant.” State v. Anderson, 537 So. 2d 1373, 1375 (Fla.1989); see also, Lackos v. State, 339 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1976).
We find no merit in Huffman’s second point on appeal. The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS, C.J., and DIAMANTIS, J., concur. . Huffman’s brief mistakenly asserts that the amendment was to add the words “Thrift Shop” to Count I., Those words were consistently used in both informations.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wallace v. State, 689 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…of trial, after a defendant’s refusal to plead guilty to the initially charged crimes. State v. Phillips, 642 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), rev denied, 561 So. 2d 1195 (Fla.1995); Rosser v. State, 658 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Huffman v. State, 636 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The record indicates that there was no prejudice to the defendant when the state amended the information, because defendant was out on bail and the trial was continued for twelve days to allow him to interview and depose new wit…
-
Sanders v. State, 669 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ence that was found to be burglarized by Sanders was the home of the victim, whether that home was located at 7427 or 7527 Pine Island Road. The trial court did not err in allowing the state to amend its information. Previously in Huffman v. State, 636 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), we deferred to our supreme court’s holding in State v. Anderson, 537 So. 2d 1373 (Fla.1989). There, the supreme court held, “the state may substantively amend information during trial, even over the objection of the defendant, u…
-
Davis v. State, 740 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…e cannot classify this case along with the many other cases in which the state makes a formal amendment to allege an inconsequential fact or a fact well known to the defendant. See, e.g., Lackos v. State, 339 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1976); Huffman v. State, 636 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Bowden v. State, 642 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Young v. State, 632 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). For these reasons, we hold that the trial court erred in requiring the defendant to proceed to trial on the amended informa…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Anderson, 537 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1989)
- Lacros v. State, 339 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1976)